And Surely We Need To Be Better Than 6th In Points Scored To Be Competitive

[Ring 6]

No. What I'm saying is that the numbers are inflated by the three crazy great weeks at the end, and for the VAST MAJORITY of the season - even taking away the three bad games at the start that you want to ignore - they were league average at best in the Red Zone. I'm sorry - the numbers are what they are.

First 3 weeks - TERRIBLE
Middle 11 weeks - league average
Last 3 weeks - GREAT

The problem is that the middle section constituted the bulk of their games. If it was three similar-sized chunks of the season, you might have a point. But having three great weeks at the end that boosts your stats doesn't really capture how you performed for the vast majority of the season.

That’s not accurate. The middle 11 weeks were top 10.
But that isn’t the point.
The point is after starting slow because of a rookie QB they improved and were #1 in the red zone the rest of the season.
You are trying to dispute that by removing the end of the season when they improved the most in that area.
In other words you are saying they didn’t become that good because you want to stop 80% of the way through.
There is surely no implication threat when you are the best over a period of time that you are the best each and every week of that time. If you think that’s the criteria then you don’t understand the nfl.

 

[ivanvamp]

That’s not accurate. The middle 11 weeks were top 10.
But that isn’t the point.
The point is after starting slow because of a rookie QB they improved and were #1 in the red zone the rest of the season.
You are trying to dispute that by removing the end of the season when they improved the most in that area.
In other words you are saying they didn’t become that good because you want to stop 80% of the way through.
There is surely no implication threat when you are the best over a period of time that you are the best each and every week of that time. If you think that’s the criteria then you don’t understand the nfl.

I literally walked you through week by week.

So the first 3 weeks: 2-7 (28.6%).
Next 11 weeks: 25-42 (59.5%).
Last 3 weeks: 12-13 (92.3%).
Last 14 weeks: 37-55 (67.3%).

That 59.5% over those middle 11 weeks would have ranked NE #17 in the NFL.

Your critique of me is off base. What I'm doing - what you don't seem to grasp - is that for the VAST BULK of the season, they were average at best in the red zone. Yes, they were PHENOMENAL the last three weeks of the season. I have said that a million times by now. But their quantum leap the last three weeks boosted the overall stats from weeks 4-18 so much that it makes it look like they were one of the best RZ teams in the NFL for most of the year. They simply weren't. Like, not even close. I don't understand how you're not getting this. It's literally right there in black and white.

 

[Ring 6]

I literally walked you through week by week.

So the first 3 weeks: 2-7 (28.6%).
Next 11 weeks: 25-42 (59.5%).
Last 3 weeks: 12-13 (92.3%).
Last 14 weeks: 37-55 (67.3%).

That 59.5% over those middle 11 weeks would have ranked NE #17 in the NFL.

Your critique of me is off base. What I'm doing - what you don't seem to grasp - is that for the VAST BULK of the season, they were average at best in the red zone. Yes, they were PHENOMENAL the last three weeks of the season. I have said that a million times by now. But their quantum leap the last three weeks boosted the overall stats from weeks 4-18 so much that it makes it look like they were one of the best RZ teams in the NFL for most of the year. They simply weren't. Like, not even close. I don't understand how you're not getting this. It's literally right there in black and white.

They were the best red zone offense after week 3. That is a fact. Eliminating games in order to refute that is disingenuous.
They were 39/63 for the season 61.9% 11th best
They were 2/8 weeks 1-3. That means they were 37/55 after week 3. 67.3% best in the NFL.

Its very simple, you either agree they were the best performing red zone offense after week 3 or you don’t. Being the best over a period of time does not require being the best in each and every part of that period.

 

[ivanvamp]

They were the best red zone offense after week 3. That is a fact. Eliminating games in order to refute that is disingenuous.
They were 39/63 for the season 61.9% 11th best
They were 2/8 weeks 1-3. That means they were 37/55 after week 3. 67.3% best in the NFL.

Its very simple, you either agree they were the best performing red zone offense after week 3 or you don’t. Being the best over a period of time does not require being the best in each and every part of that period.

It's not disingenuous if we're actually trying to see in reality how effective they were, because those last three weeks skew the overall post-week-3 numbers SO badly.

A dude that's a league average hitter for the vast majority of the season but gets red hot the last couple of weeks of the year is going to have a final batting average that gives the impression that he's been one of the best hitters in the league all year long, when in reality he hasn't.

That's the Pats' RZ offense this year. I'm sorry - that's a fact. They were terrible in weeks 1-3. They were awesome in weeks 16-18. They were league average for all those games in between. That's a fact.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

It's not disingenuous if we're actually trying to see in reality how effective they were, because those last three weeks skew the overall post-week-3 numbers SO badly.

A dude that's a league average hitter for the vast majority of the season but gets red hot the last couple of weeks of the year is going to have a final batting average that gives the impression that he's been one of the best hitters in the league all year long, when in reality he hasn't.

That's the Pats' RZ offense this year. I'm sorry - that's a fact. They were terrible in weeks 1-3. They were awesome in weeks 16-18. They were league average for all those games in between. That's a fact.

Agree. It's laughable for andyjohnson to be repeatedly claiming the offense was good when after the bye it was only getting 3 red zone chances a game, not counting the NCAA game against the Jaguars. 3 red zone chances a game is terrible.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not disingenuous if we're actually trying to see in reality how effective they were, because those last three weeks skew the overall post-week-3 numbers SO badly.

A dude that's a league average hitter for the vast majority of the season but gets red hot the last couple of weeks of the year is going to have a final batting average that gives the impression that he's been one of the best hitters in the league all year long, when in reality he hasn't.

That's the Pats' RZ offense this year. I'm sorry - that's a fact. They were terrible in weeks 1-3. They were awesome in weeks 16-18. They were league average for all those games in between. That's a fact.

Yes he is because the timeframe is a full year. Being the best hitter over a full season does not require that he is the best every week. Your “impression” is because of your misunderstanding.
That guy was not worse that someone who hit better at different times but overall was worse. That’s just not the way it works.

Your argument is that the horse who comes from behind to win the race really lost because he spent less time leading.

 

[Sam Bam Cunningham]

When the Chief or teh packers play and they get down by 14 or 17 points, you know the game is not over because they cam quickly come all the way back and can score points quickly. Also true of the bills and perhaps the bengals. In the 2022 NFL, its not how many points you score or your red zone efficiency, its more about ability to score points under pressure including:

1. early in game, especially when team is good at burning time with a decent running game.
2. when you fall behind by 1-2 scores

I think this years Pats have been terrible in these 2 situations. Its fine to focus on the running game but an explosive offense when needed is critical to becoming a super bowl contender. Pats can not do this right now and will remain also rans unless and until they develop big play capabilities. Total points is not a great reflection.

 

[Ring 6]

Agree. It's laughable for andyjohnson to be repeatedly claiming the offense was good when after the bye it was only getting 3 red zone chances a game, not counting the NCAA game against the Jaguars. 3 red zone chances a game is terrible.

I “repeatedly claim” that after week 3 they had the #1 red zone offense. That is a fact.
I “repeatedly claim” they were 6th in points scored. They were 2nd best is % of drives they scored on.
Only a moron would not conclude that is good and only someone of your capacity would think it’s not good with a rookie QB.
But please go ahead and tell me how the 6th highest scoring offense is bad. How the second highest score % is bad.
You were the one railing on how terrible the red zone offense was after week 3 saying the OC is 100% to blame. He went on from that point to gave the #1 red zone %, so the OC should get 100% credit right?

 

[Ring 6]

When the Chief or teh packers play and they get down by 14 or 17 points, you know the game is not over because they cam quickly come all the way back and can score points quickly. Also true of the bills and perhaps the bengals. In the 2022 NFL, its not how many points you score or your red zone efficiency, its more about ability to score points under pressure including:

1. early in game, especially when team is good at burning time with a decent running game.
2. when you fall behind by 1-2 scores

I think this years Pats have been terrible in these 2 situations. Its fine to focus on the running game but an explosive offense when needed is critical to becoming a super bowl contender. Pats can not do this right now and will remain also rans unless and until they develop big play capabilities. Total points is not a great reflection.

Thanks for the insight of what “you know” will happen in a future game. Lol.

 

[ivanvamp]

Yes he is because the timeframe is a full year. Being the best hitter over a full season does not require that he is the best every week. Your “impression” is because of your misunderstanding.
That guy was not worse that someone who hit better at different times but overall was worse. That’s just not the way it works.

Your argument is that the horse who comes from behind to win the race really lost because he spent less time leading.

No no no this reveals YOUR misunderstanding, because football is played on a week-to-week basis. Each week is one game. They don't take the final stats and say oh this means you were the best.

So let me put it this way. Let's say it's a five game season (we'll keep it really simple). In the first four games you score zero points and in the last game you beat up a terrible team and score 150 points. So you finish with 150 points scored, which (in this scenario) happens to be the most in the league.

So you're right - this would mean they're the highest scoring team in the league. But that statistic is COMPLETELY WARPED by that one singular data point. They were AWFUL the first four games and lost all four, and then in one magical "it all came together for them and everything went right" game they piled on the points.

Statistically they'd be #1 in the league in scoring. But the on-field reality is that they were terrible for four out of the five weeks and phenomenal one out of the five.

This is how the NFL *actually* works - your horse racing example is nonsensical. It's really 17 one-game data sets, not one gigantic 17-game data set.


EDIT: Where we agree is that the Pats definitely improved in games 4-14 over games 1-3, and then improved drastically in games 15-17 over games 4-14, so that's an encouraging sign moving forward. I do think they started to figure something out in the red zone for sure. But this is a clear case of the overall statistics not really telling us the real story.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

No no no this reveals YOUR misunderstanding, because football is played on a week-to-week basis. Each week is one game. They don't take the final stats and say oh this means you were the best.

So let me put it this way. Let's say it's a five game season (we'll keep it really simple). In the first four games you score zero points and in the last game you beat up a terrible team and score 150 points. So you finish with 150 points scored, which (in this scenario) happens to be the most in the league.

So you're right - this would mean they're the highest scoring team in the league. But that statistic is COMPLETELY WARPED by that one singular data point. They were AWFUL the first four games and lost all four, and then in one magical "it all came together for them and everything went right" game they piled on the points.

Statistically they'd be #1 in the league in scoring. But the on-field reality is that they were terrible for four out of the five weeks and phenomenal one out of the five.

This is how the NFL *actually* works - your horse racing example is nonsensical. It's really 17 one-game data sets, not one gigantic 17-game data set.


EDIT: Where we agree is that the Pats definitely improved in games 4-14 over games 1-3, and then improved drastically in games 15-17 over games 4-14, so that's an encouraging sign moving forward. I do think they started to figure something out in the red zone for sure. But this is a clear case of the overall statistics not really telling us the real story.

You're wasting your time, it's like talking to a rock.

But your info is good. It's about time duration. Pats were a mediocre offense all year long. A Jaguars NCAA beatdown doesn't change that. And only averaging 3 red zone trips a game is horrible even at the end of year.

 

[Ring 6]

No no no this reveals YOUR misunderstanding, because football is played on a week-to-week basis. Each week is one game. They don't take the final stats and say oh this means you were the best.

So let me put it this way. Let's say it's a five game season (we'll keep it really simple). In the first four games you score zero points and in the last game you beat up a terrible team and score 150 points. So you finish with 150 points scored, which (in this scenario) happens to be the most in the league.

So you're right - this would mean they're the highest scoring team in the league. But that statistic is COMPLETELY WARPED by that one singular data point. They were AWFUL the first four games and lost all four, and then in one magical "it all came together for them and everything went right" game they piled on the points.

Statistically they'd be #1 in the league in scoring. But the on-field reality is that they were terrible for four out of the five weeks and phenomenal one out of the five.

This is how the NFL *actually* works - your horse racing example is nonsensical. It's really 17 one-game data sets, not one gigantic 17-game data set.

Your analogy is terrible. It’s not a 5 game season. And no team scores 150 points.
We aren’t even talking about winning, losing, quality of team or anything else. We are talking about red zone performance. It’s a statistic not an overall assessment.
The Raiders were #1 in red zone offense and #31 in points scored in Carrs rookie season.

So please explain which red zone offense was better after week 3, since you think that being worse is better iAd long as it didn’t happen during the final push toward the playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

You're wasting your time, it's like talking to a rock.

But your info is good. It's about time duration. Pats were a mediocre offense all year long. A Jaguars NCAA beatdown doesn't change that. And only averaging 3 red zone trips a game is horrible even at the end of year.

Mediocre? So you can find more than 10 offenses who scored fewer points that did better? You can find more than 15 who scored on a lower proportion of their possessions who did better?
Great, so you’ve put yourself in a position where you can back up your beliefs.
If the patriot offense was mediocre

Essential Meaning of mediocre
: not very good
The dinner was delicious, but the dessert was mediocre.The carpenter did a mediocrejob.

So “not very good” would at least mean more are better than worse, so please list the 16 offenses that did better than the Patriots in 2021.
I’ll give you a head start
You can safely eliminate the following teams who scored more than 100 fewer points.
Miami
Jets
Pittsburgh
Clevekand
Houston
Jacksonville
Denver
Wash
Giants
Chicago
Detroit
Atlanta
Carolina

so you only need to look at the other 18 to find your 16 that you think did better, 11 of which scored fewer points.
Your response should be enlightening.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Buffalo Bills D’s reaction when hearing the Pats O was “6th in points scored”:

 

[ivanvamp]

Your analogy is terrible. It’s not a 5 game season. And no team scores 150 points.
We aren’t even talking about winning, losing, quality of team or anything else. We are talking about red zone performance. It’s a statistic not an overall assessment.
The Raiders were #1 in red zone offense and #31 in points scored in Carrs rookie season.

So please explain which red zone offense was better after week 3, since you think that being worse is better iAd long as it didn’t happen during the final push toward the playoffs.

Look, I'm not denying the numbers. What I'm saying is that the overall statistic gives a certain impression that wasn't actually borne out in the bulk of the regular season. I used silly numbers to make the point. Here's some facts:

1. The Patriots were the worst in the league in RZ TD% through three games.
2. From games 4-14, the Patriots RZ TD% was about 59%, which was a number that would have put them middle of the pack in the NFL.
3. In games 15-17, the Patriots RZ TD% was over 91%, which was #2 in the NFL.
4. Overall, their RZ TD% ranking was dead last through three weeks. From weeks 4-14 their ranking climbed to, then stayed, in the high teens or low-mid 20s.
5. By season's end, their RZ TD% was in the top 10 in the league.

So, some conclusions that are objectively true, and not simply a matter of your or my opinion:

* The Patriots started the year horrifically poorly in RZ offense.
* The Patriots improved as the year went on.
* The Patriots were middle of the pack from weeks 4-14, which was an improvement over their first three weeks, but wasn't by any stretch of the imagination, "great".
* The Patriots poured it on the last three weeks and thus their final RZ TD% ranking was very good.
* Their final RZ TD% was not reflective of a whole season's worth of consistent RZ excellence, but was the product mainly of slight improvement during the middle of the season and then skewed by phenomenal last three weeks.

Everything I just said there is objectively true. Not opinion. Fact.

If you just look at their final RZ stat and don't look at how they got there, then you're really not understanding what happened with this team this year.

 

[‘Mondre]

Beyond all the clutter coming from fans…

we beat all the bad teams…

we won only three against the good ones (cle and ten were depleted)…

we competed against TB, DAL…

were AVERAGE… simple as that.

we put off completely rebuilding in ‘17-‘19 by keeping TB, signing AB, etc… but got a ring out of it.

We can’t do it anymore. Gotta let the bottom fall out and not blame BB, Mac, McDaniels, OR Harry… and accept that we likely won’t make the postseason next year.

a good draft and some top-10 numbers from Mac are all I’ll need to call it a good season.

they also need to let uche and wino and barmore eat! Myers too he could be a piece.

 

[Ring 6]

Look, I'm not denying the numbers. What I'm saying is that the overall statistic gives a certain impression that wasn't actually borne out in the bulk of the regular season. I used silly numbers to make the point. Here's some facts:

1. The Patriots were the worst in the league in RZ TD% through three games.
2. From games 4-14, the Patriots RZ TD% was about 59%, which was a number that would have put them middle of the pack in the NFL.
3. In games 15-17, the Patriots RZ TD% was over 91%, which was #2 in the NFL.
4. Overall, their RZ TD% ranking was dead last through three weeks. From weeks 4-14 their ranking climbed to, then stayed, in the high teens or low-mid 20s.
5. By season's end, their RZ TD% was in the top 10 in the league.

So, some conclusions that are objectively true, and not simply a matter of your or my opinion:

* The Patriots started the year horrifically poorly in RZ offense.
* The Patriots improved as the year went on.
* The Patriots were middle of the pack from weeks 4-14, which was an improvement over their first three weeks, but wasn't by any stretch of the imagination, "great".
* The Patriots poured it on the last three weeks and thus their final RZ TD% ranking was very good.
* Their final RZ TD% was not reflective of a whole season's worth of consistent RZ excellence, but was the product mainly of slight improvement during the middle of the season and then skewed by phenomenal last three weeks.

Everything I just said there is objectively true. Not opinion. Fact.

If you just look at their final RZ stat and don't look at how they got there, then you're really not understanding what happened with this team this year.

Whatever impression you personally have and however you misinterpret the statement
“After week 3 the patriots were #1 in rz td %”
is still 100% correct.
YOU are the one making up that this implies more than it is.

You walked into this with a bozo poster telling me that was a lie. It is not, and you are only feeding the clowns.

Never has anyone stated that a team was #1 in anything over a long period of time and implied that to mean they were #1 week in and week out for the entire period.

Every other offense had good games and bad games during that period of time. To say the #1 team wasn’t really #1 because you want to eliminate 3 good games is just wrong. You aren’t eliminating them from the other teams. You are not fairly comparing.

In any event, there is no point going back and forth. You want to argue how a statistic made you feel. I’m just dealing with the facts.

 

[‘Mondre]

Look, I'm not denying the numbers. What I'm saying is that the overall statistic gives a certain impression that wasn't actually borne out in the bulk of the regular season. I used silly numbers to make the point. Here's some facts:

1. The Patriots were the worst in the league in RZ TD% through three games.
2. From games 4-14, the Patriots RZ TD% was about 59%, which was a number that would have put them middle of the pack in the NFL.
3. In games 15-17, the Patriots RZ TD% was over 91%, which was #2 in the NFL.
4. Overall, their RZ TD% ranking was dead last through three weeks. From weeks 4-14 their ranking climbed to, then stayed, in the high teens or low-mid 20s.
5. By season's end, their RZ TD% was in the top 10 in the league.

So, some conclusions that are objectively true, and not simply a matter of your or my opinion:

* The Patriots started the year horrifically poorly in RZ offense.
* The Patriots improved as the year went on.
* The Patriots were middle of the pack from weeks 4-14, which was an improvement over their first three weeks, but wasn't by any stretch of the imagination, "great".
* The Patriots poured it on the last three weeks and thus their final RZ TD% ranking was very good.
* Their final RZ TD% was not reflective of a whole season's worth of consistent RZ excellence, but was the product mainly of slight improvement during the middle of the season and then skewed by phenomenal last three weeks.

Everything I just said there is objectively true. Not opinion. Fact.

If you just look at their final RZ stat and don't look at how they got there, then you're really not understanding what happened with this team this year.

Factor in that we had a rook qb and new pieces on offense, I ain’t mad w that.

 

[Ring 6]

Beyond all the clutter coming from fans…

we beat all the bad teams…

we won only three against the good ones (cle and ten were depleted)…

we competed against TB, DAL…

were AVERAGE… simple as that.

we put off completely rebuilding in ‘17-‘19 by keeping TB, signing AB, etc… but got a ring out of it.

We can’t do it anymore. Gotta let the bottom fall out and not blame BB, Mac, McDaniels, OR Harry… and accept that we likely won’t make the postseason next year.

a good draft and some top-10 numbers from Mac are all I’ll need to call it a good season.

they also need to let uche and wino and barmore eat! Myers too he could be a piece.

Better than average. 10-7 playoff team.
Why would you expect a bottoming out?
The offense was among, if not the best ever with a rookie QB.
The defense needs to retool a little but BB has done that effectively for over 20 years.
Bottoming out was 2020 and this was the first step back up the ladder.

 

[ivanvamp]

Whatever impression you personally have and however you misinterpret the statement
“After week 3 the patriots were #1 in rz td %”
is still 100% correct.
YOU are the one making up that this implies more than it is.

You walked into this with a bozo poster telling me that was a lie. It is not, and you are only feeding the clowns.

Never has anyone stated that a team was #1 in anything over a long period of time and implied that to mean they were #1 week in and week out for the entire period.

Every other offense had good games and bad games during that period of time. To say the #1 team wasn’t really #1 because you want to eliminate 3 good games is just wrong. You aren’t eliminating them from the other teams. You are not fairly comparing.

In any event, there is no point going back and forth. You want to argue how a statistic made you feel. I’m just dealing with the facts.

Uh.....I gave you facts, not feelings.