Tankathon

[brdmaverick]

Im upset we ended up killing our position as well but it is what it is. The team has lost so many close games they were bound to start winning some, unless theyd have PURPOSELY thrown games which no professional should do. The team is still fighting for each other and the coach and thats what you want to see.

We were honestly ‘lucky’ that we only had 2 wins heading into the Pittsburgh game. As bad as the team is they are probably much better than the record indicates. Injuries, mac being historically poor, and bad luck in general this season almost led us to a top 3 pick but it was too good to be true. My preseason prediction was 8 wins and I honestly feel like that is what we are under normal circumstances. Might as well embrace the #5 or whatever our pick ends up being, thats still a pretty big break for us.

When they got the ball with a minute left in a tie game and RAN the ball twice I took that as them 'trying to lose'.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

When they got the ball with a minute left in a tie game and RAN the ball twice I took that as them 'trying to lose'.

Yep this is why no matter what happens the next couple weeks i hope theres big coaching changes coming. There’s been a considerable drop off there too since 20 or 21, its not just the personnel fails.

 

[Clonamery]

Yep this is why no matter what happens the next couple weeks i hope theres big coaching changes coming. There’s been a considerable drop off there too since 20 or 21, its not just the personnel fails.

There were 3 TO's left, it gave them options. They didn't take a knee for chrissakes.

You're not really patsylicious, you're patsyinedible.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

There were 3 TO's left, it gave them options. They didn't take a knee for chrissakes.

You're not really patsylicious, you're patsyinedible.

Patsy inedible i like that! Yeah, running on 1st and 2nd down with 58 seconds left on our own 19 is not how you approach a 2 minute drill. We were lucky denver took timeouts or it would’ve went to ot instead of having a fg attempt, where anything could have happened. In this league the vast majority of the time playing scared is playing to lose.

 

[Clonamery]

Patsy inedible i like that! Yeah, running on 1st and 2nd down with 58 seconds left on our own 19 is not how you approach a 2 minute drill. We were lucky denver took timeouts or it would’ve went to ot instead of having a fg attempt, where anything could have happened. In this league the vast majority of the time playing scared is playing to lose.

Simply put, they know who they are.

Defense did their part. Then with Denver thinking they would get the ball back using their TO's, they played to a manageable 3rd down and fortunately the QB made a play and they went for it. That's who they are, limit the opponent's best chances and still give yourself chance. Nothing is easy when your QB has a lot to learn.

 

[brdmaverick]

There were 3 TO's left, it gave them options. They didn't take a knee for chrissakes.

You're not really patsylicious, you're patsyinedible.

They won the game but I don't know how anyone can defend running the ball with 52 seconds and a tie game. If the Broncos didn't call time out then the game would have gone into overtime. Would you have wanted that? The Pats to give up on an opportunity to just outright win it themselves? Think about it, I really can't imagine another team 'not playing for the win' in that situation, and yet that's exactly what we did. Inexcusable in my book.

Yes, the other team had 3 time outs, but your primary goal is to score and win the game. If and when you get in field goal range THEN you run the ball and play the clock/field position game. You don't run out the clock and ruin your own chance of winning just because the opposition has 3 time outs.

 

[Clonamery]

They won the game but I don't know how anyone can defend running the ball with 52 seconds and a tie game. If the Broncos didn't call time out then the game would have gone into overtime. Would you have wanted that? The Pats to give up on an opportunity to just outright win it themselves? Think about it, I really can't imagine another team 'not playing for the win' in that situation, and yet that's exactly what we did. Inexcusable in my book.

Yes, the other team had 3 time outs, but your primary goal is to score and win the game. If and when you get in field goal range THEN you run the ball and play the clock/field position game. You don't run out the clock and ruin your own chance of winning just because the opposition has 3 time outs.

Your primary goal is to win the game. To do that you have to limit the other guy's chances and give yourself the best chance to win, right? And still the players have to execute. In a perfect world, if you have Tom ****ing Brady, you can take a different approach but when you have a guy with 3 starts in the NFL and 58 seconds at your own 19, you need help. They got help. Then they took a chance. You don't get help, you go to OT. It's classic risk management. And the players made enough plays (including making a 56 yd FG).

 

[Steve102]

I have been a big proponent of the possibility of them tanking. In my mind, after the Colts and Chargers games, there was no way they could be trying to win and be that bad. With that said, they made some plays and the Broncos handed them the STs TD, and it seemed very clear to me they weren't tanking until the 1st and 2nd down running plays that everyone is talking about. So... in my mind, if they are tanking, no one knows about it but Bill. Not likely. I think they just are not good offensively. I was wrong, they aren't tanking, they are just bad.

I think they end up 5-11, same as Bill's 1st year. Wherever that puts them, it is what it is. I'm not sweating the QB thing in the draft. There's plenty of QBs that will be there, none as good as Tom Brady, none as bad as Mac Jones.

 

[Huckleberry1]

It's one thing to accept defeat, it's another to root for it.

I disagree. First of all I haven’t been watching them since they were eliminated from the playoff s because I found that I couldn’t actively root against them while watching them. However imo everyone rooting for them to lose is rooting for the best interests of the team. I guarantee that every Jets fan was pissed when they won the game tha cost them Trevor Lawrence, as they should have been because their franchise would have been much better off today had they lost that game. Right now the vast majority of Patriot fans want them to lose out so they can get the best player possible in the draft, and that doesn’t make them bad fans, that makes them sensible, as they gain nothing by winning the last two games, and get their best shot at a better player if they lose them. You and anyone else can root for them to win if you want to, that’s your prerogative, but anyone who tells those of us rooting for the higher pick that we are bad fans for supporting what’s best for the franchise can go screw themselves. We are supporting what we feel is best for the franchise, and that’s our prerogative.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Simply put, they know who they are.

Defense did their part. Then with Denver thinking they would get the ball back using their TO's, they played to a manageable 3rd down and fortunately the QB made a play and they went for it. That's who they are, limit the opponent's best chances and still give yourself chance. Nothing is easy when your QB has a lot to learn.

I get your premise but This is a very slippery strategy. just wait until youre in a predictable 3rd down passing situation to let the qb start throwing instead of throwing from the getgo. Because as playcallers we would know that our team which was averaging 2-3 ypc that night on rb carries that you will most likely need to convert 3rd down through the air or else you are handing the ball right back to denver. You’re actually making it tougher on the qb than easier tbh

 

[Huckleberry1]

Your primary goal is to win the game. To do that you have to limit the other guy's chances and give yourself the best chance to win, right? And still the players have to execute. In a perfect world, if you have Tom ****ing Brady, you can take a different approach but when you have a guy with 3 starts in the NFL and 58 seconds at your own 19, you need help. They got help. Then they took a chance. You don't get help, you go to OT. It's classic risk management. And the players made enough plays (including making a 56 yd FG).

So how do you explain Belichick telling Brady to throw the ball into the stands and lose so they could get Jacksonville in the playoffs? Belichick always tries to win every game, but he knew that losing gave them a better match in the playoffs, so he told Brady to throw the ball away so they would lose

 

[sambam94]

Can anyone confirm, If both Pats and Wa lose their final 2 games and are tied at 4 wins, Pats would pick ahead of WA because of a lower SOS...correct? I realize it changes each week as your opponents record changes, but Wa plays SF and Dallas so that should raise their SOS more than the Pats playing Bills and Jets.

 

[jmt57]

Can anyone confirm, If both Pats and Wa lose their final 2 games and are tied at 4 wins, Pats would pick ahead of WA because of a lower SOS...correct? I realize it changes each week as your opponents record changes, but Wa plays SF and Dallas so that should raise their SOS more than the Pats playing Bills and Jets.

Your comment piqued my curiosity, so I added up the SOS for the two teams. The first thing I noticed was that Washington's SOS was 111-114; yet on Tankathon it shows their SOS is over .500. Apparently they calculate teams' SOS based on their entire schedule and not just on the games they have already played.

When I added in both of those two final games, the results are incredibly similar. Washington went from 111-114 to 132-123 with the addition of those last two games, while the Patriots moved from 118-107 SOS to 133-122 - a mere one game difference.

Should Washington and New England finish with the same record, the SOS could easily go to either team. However, if the Pats win once and certain other teams lose twice, they could concevably fall to as low as the #7 pick! The reason for that is that draft order tiebreakers are different from playoff tiebreakers. The head to head victories/losses matter for the playoffs, but SOS is the number one (and usually only) determining factor for thee draft - which means the Giants, Chargers and possibly Tennessee could all leapfrog the Patriots in the draft order if the Pats defeat the Jets.

 

[Steve102]

Your comment piqued my curiosity, so I added up the SOS for the two teams. The first thing I noticed was that Washington's SOS was 111-114; yet on Tankathon it shows their SOS is over .500. Apparently they calculate teams' SOS based on their entire schedule and not just on the games they have already played.

When I added in both of those two final games, the results are incredibly similar. Washington went from 111-114 to 132-123 with the addition of those last two games, while the Patriots moved from 118-107 SOS to 133-122 - a mere one game difference.

Should Washington and New England finish with the same record, the SOS could easily go to either team. However, if the Pats win once and certain other teams lose twice, they could concevably fall to as low as the #7 pick! The reason for that is that draft order tiebreakers are different from playoff tiebreakers. The head to head victories/losses matter for the playoffs, but SOS is the number one (and usually only) determining factor for thee draft - which means the Giants, Chargers and possibly Tennessee could all leapfrog the Patriots in the draft order if the Pats defeat the Jets.

When they beat the Jete you mean. Bill wants to whoop on the Jete more than he wants a higher draft pick.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Can anyone confirm, If both Pats and Wa lose their final 2 games and are tied at 4 wins, Pats would pick ahead of WA because of a lower SOS...correct? I realize it changes each week as your opponents record changes, but Wa plays SF and Dallas so that should raise their SOS more than the Pats playing Bills and Jets.

Itll be hard to tell for sure until the conclusion of the final week. Each of our first 15 opponents records will also change over the last 2 weeks so sos could vary alot from what it is saying now, and it goes beyond just seeing the records of our final two opponents.

I will say im pretty hopeful we will end up with a lower sos than the other 4 or 5 win teams. When i look at the remaining games over the last 2 weeks that are between teams we played vs teams we have not ( we would be wanting the teams we have NOT played to win these games to drive down our sos) , most of these games look to go in our favor imo. But again itd very hard to predict and i haven’t done this with wash or other potential teams that could end up picking ahead of us.

 

[PatsFan2]

Your comment piqued my curiosity, so I added up the SOS for the two teams. The first thing I noticed was that Washington's SOS was 111-114; yet on Tankathon it shows their SOS is over .500. Apparently they calculate teams' SOS based on their entire schedule and not just on the games they have already played.

When I added in both of those two final games, the results are incredibly similar. Washington went from 111-114 to 132-123 with the addition of those last two games, while the Patriots moved from 118-107 SOS to 133-122 - a mere one game difference.

Should Washington and New England finish with the same record, the SOS could easily go to either team. However, if the Pats win once and certain other teams lose twice, they could concevably fall to as low as the #7 pick! The reason for that is that draft order tiebreakers are different from playoff tiebreakers. The head to head victories/losses matter for the playoffs, but SOS is the number one (and usually only) determining factor for thee draft - which means the Giants, Chargers and possibly Tennessee could all leapfrog the Patriots in the draft order if the Pats defeat the Jets.

Stupid NFL how can head to head not be the First tie breaker when the other Team already whooped you?? That rule needs to be changed!!

 

[Clonamery]

So how do you explain Belichick telling Brady to throw the ball into the stands and lose so they could get Jacksonville in the playoffs? Belichick always tries to win every game, but he knew that losing gave them a better match in the playoffs, so he told Brady to throw the ball away so they would lose

Risk management.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Risk management.

That’s no different than losing to get a better player. You are lowering the risk that the player you want will be gone.

I don’t believe players and coaches tank, and I always expect them to try and win, but there is no harm in fans wanting the higher pick, as that makes it more likely that you can get the player you believe can best help your team get better. Belichick made an exception because he knew Jacksonville would be a better playoff opponent, so he lost to increase their chances of winning, and the concept is no different than wanting a higher pick. And I haven’t given anyone **** for rooting for the Patriots to win, that’s their right, my responses have been in the context of someone giving me **** for rooting for the higher pick, when in truth most Patriot fans want the higher pick, and they aren’t worse fans for wanting that.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

So how do you explain Belichick telling Brady to throw the ball into the stands and lose so they could get Jacksonville in the playoffs? Belichick always tries to win every game, but he knew that losing gave them a better match in the playoffs, so he told Brady to throw the ball away so they would lose

Playing for playoff positioning is different than tanking for a draft pick. Anyway, I am pretty sure that was Cassell who started instead of Brady. The team was coached to win until the last play of the game.

 

[brdmaverick]

Your primary goal is to win the game. To do that you have to limit the other guy's chances and give yourself the best chance to win, right? And still the players have to execute. In a perfect world, if you have Tom ****ing Brady, you can take a different approach but when you have a guy with 3 starts in the NFL and 58 seconds at your own 19, you need help. They got help. Then they took a chance. You don't get help, you go to OT. It's classic risk management. And the players made enough plays (including making a 56 yd FG).

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Running on two plays and trying to kill the clock or force time outs is playing scared and trying not to lose. With nothing to lost they should have gone out and given them every chance they could get and sling it for three downs instead of hoping for a third down conversion. I guess we just see it differently but it’s all good