Cumulative Patriots Scores in Seven Super Bowls

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

(Regulation Time Only)

Patriots, 163
Opponents, 157

Patriots, 23.3 ppg
Opponents, 22.4 ppg

I think the Patriots are fortunate to be 5-2 in Super Bowls considering it is nearly mathematically impossible to be 7-0 while outscoring opponents by 6 points over 7 games (unless you count the regulation tie and later win in overtime.) I wish we had the perfect season, but beyond that, I'll take 5 wins considering we have been virtually even in all seven games (maybe not the Eagles game) with the game coming down to a few big plays/lucky bounces and who had the ball last.

 

[signbabybrady]

Gets kinda funny if you throw in the loses from the 80s and 90s. Winning record still but out scored.

 

[pctronics0072]

What are the numbers like for the donks? I mean one blowout could take6 wins to recover from.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Gets kinda funny if you throw in the loses from the 80s and 90s. Winning record still but out scored.

Even moreso if you include all championship games, with AFL title game.

Prior to Brady Era:

PF: 41 PA: 132

Super Bowl, history:

PF: 200 PA: 238

League Championship Games, history:

PF: 210 PA: 289

 

[TB_Helmet]

This is some great data but why leave out overtime? Seems arbitrary.

Still love how we won the only overtime Super Bowl ever! One of the many aspects of that game that makes it so incredible.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is some great data but why leave out overtime? Seems arbitrary.

Still love how we won the only overtime Super Bowl ever! One of the many aspects of that game that makes it so incredible.

Because the six point OT win was the largest margin of victory of all the Super Bowls, but that is misleading because the game was tied at the end of regulation, and therefore the closest of all the games.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Traditionally, most QBs and teams are 50/50 in terms of winning close games, as defined by one score. Football seasons are short, so you often see one-season anomalies, but you usually see a correction the next year. It's quite common for teams who win a lot of close games in a season to suddenly drop a bunch the next season. It's been written about a ton.

But there are some exceptions. Some QBs have consistently won more close games than others, and no surprise, Tom Brady leads the pack. This article is a bit older, but at that time, has Brady winning over 71%, by far the best mark.

Running Out of Luck

So maybe we are fortunate to win 5, especially needing 2 of the largest comebacks in Super Bowl history. But maybe it has more to do with having the GOAT.

 

[Ring 6]

Because the six point OT win was the largest margin of victory of all the Super Bowls, but that is misleading because the game was tied at the end of regulation, and therefore the closest of all the games.

But that would mean they are 4-2-1 in your analysis.

 

[Ring 6]

Traditionally, most QBs and teams are 50/50 in terms of winning close games, as defined by one score. Football seasons are short, so you often see one-season anomalies, but you usually see a correction the next year. It's quite common for teams who win a lot of close games in a season to suddenly drop a bunch the next season. It's been written about a ton.

But there are some exceptions. Some QBs have consistently won more close games than others, and no surprise, Tom Brady leads the pack. This article is a bit older, but at that time, has Brady winning over 71%, by far the best mark.

Running Out of Luck

So maybe we are fortunate to win 5, especially needing 2 of the largest comebacks in Super Bowl history. But maybe it has more to do with having the GOAT.

Winning close games is not a coin flip that ends up 50/50 in the long run because it is based upon talent, coaching and culture.
One of the reasons the patriots are the greatest dynasty ever is that Brady delivers in the clutch and belichick coaches situation football and is the best teacher of the intellectual part of the game in the league.
They win close games because of who they are so calling that luck is just wrong.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Winning close games is not a coin flip that ends up 50/50 in the long run because it is based upon talent, coaching and culture.
One of the reasons the patriots are the greatest dynasty ever is that Brady delivers in the clutch and belichick coaches situation football and is the best teacher of the intellectual part of the game in the league.
They win close games because of who they are so calling that luck is just wrong.

I don't think you read my previous post in its entirety.

A lot has been written about the regression of teams winning close games, it's a fairly consistent thing, but there are outliers, usually great QBs as I wrote earlier. I also wrote that Tom Brady us the best of the bunch, by a significant margin. Great QBs can consistently overcome that random luck factor.

Which is what the article in the previous post talks about. Worth reading.

 

[PF_SU]

Traditionally, most QBs and teams are 50/50 in terms of winning close games, as defined by one score. Football seasons are short, so you often see one-season anomalies, but you usually see a correction the next year. It's quite common for teams who win a lot of close games in a season to suddenly drop a bunch the next season. It's been written about a ton.

But there are some exceptions. Some QBs have consistently won more close games than others, and no surprise, Tom Brady leads the pack. This article is a bit older, but at that time, has Brady winning over 71%, by far the best mark.

Running Out of Luck

So maybe we are fortunate to win 5, especially needing 2 of the largest comebacks in Super Bowl history. But maybe it has more to do with having the GOAT.

I have a problem with such fixed viewpoints that don't account for how the close scores came about. Let's just take a look at the first three titles, each of those won by three points:

XXXVI: 17-3 NWE entering the 4th quarter
XXXVIII: 21-10 NWE with 14:49 left in the 4th quarter
XXXIX: 24-14 NWE with 8:40 left in the 4th quarter

In XXXVI and XXXVIII the Patriots D collapsed in the 4th, but the Patriots got the ball last with enough time left on the clock. It's no secret that teams that get the ball last with enough time on the clock have a higher chance to win. Giants won XLII and XLVI with that and Patriots L. The only exception is XLIX.

And though the final score was only three points in XXXIX the game was never in doubt.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

(Regulation Time Only)

Patriots, 163
Opponents, 157

Patriots, 23.3 ppg
Opponents, 22.4 ppg

I think the Patriots are fortunate to be 5-2 in Super Bowls considering it is nearly mathematically impossible to be 7-0 while outscoring opponents by 6 points over 7 games (unless you count the regulation tie and later win in overtime.) I wish we had the perfect season, but beyond that, I'll take 5 wins considering we have been virtually even in all seven games (maybe not the Eagles game) with the game coming down to a few big plays/lucky bounces and who had the ball last.

We're actually 5-4 in super bowls. I mean the patriots DID exist prior to 2001....

 

[oldrover]

We are actually 5-4 in super bowls. I mean the patriots DID exist prior to 2001.

Whaaaaat?!?!?!




"Get... out!!!!"

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I have a problem with such fixed viewpoints that don't account for how the close scores came about. Let's just take a look at the first three titles, each of those won by three points:

XXXVI: 17-3 NWE entering the 4th quarter
XXXVIII: 21-10 NWE with 14:49 left in the 4th quarter
XXXIX: 24-14 NWE with 8:40 left in the 4th quarter

In XXXVI and XXXVIII the Patriots D collapsed in the 4th, but the Patriots got the ball last with enough time left on the clock. It's no secret that teams that get the ball last with enough time on the clock have a higher chance to win. Giants won XLII and XLVI with that and Patriots L. The only exception is XLIX.

And though the final score was only three points in XXXIX the game was never in doubt.

It's a fair argument. Then again, we were down 10 to the Seahawks and 19 to the Falcons going into the 4th and both ended up as one-score wins.

Looking at one or two instances, sure, we will find issues and discrepancies. Over a larger sample size though, you start to see some tendencies and patterns emerge. It isn't perfect, but sure beats the eye test or whatever other ******** talking heads tend to spew.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

(Regulation Time Only)

Patriots, 163
Opponents, 157

Patriots, 23.3 ppg
Opponents, 22.4 ppg

I think the Patriots are fortunate to be 5-2 in Super Bowls considering it is nearly mathematically impossible to be 7-0 while outscoring opponents by 6 points over 7 games (unless you count the regulation tie and later win in overtime.) I wish we had the perfect season, but beyond that, I'll take 5 wins considering we have been virtually even in all seven games (maybe not the Eagles game) with the game coming down to a few big plays/lucky bounces and who had the ball last.

Sort of falls in the category of Fake News for two reasons:

One, and mainly, because the Patriots are not "5--2 in Super Bowls," they are "5--4 in Super Bowls." The team was founded in 1960, as part of the old American Football League, not 2000 when Brady and Belichick joined the team as QB (fourth string) and HC or 1994 when Kraft purchased the Franchise outright. A Championship Game between the winners of the AFL and the NFL was first played in 1966. From the 1966 Season through the 1969 Season the game was called the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game," but fans started calling it the Super Bowl from the beginning. "Super Bowl" first appeared on the Program in the third Championship Game and on the tickets for the fourth. The Patriots played in and lost the Super Bowl in 1986 (XX, Chicago) and 1997 (XXI, Green Bay). Those games are important for many reasons to those of us who remember them.

Two, what's the point of limiting the analysis to "Regulation Time?" The point is who won and by how much, isn't it?

 

[brdmaverick]

Because the six point OT win was the largest margin of victory of all the Super Bowls, but that is misleading because the game was tied at the end of regulation, and therefore the closest of all the games.

Yeah, but the 'score is the score'. Otherwise it feels like are massaging the data to meet our needs.

For instance, the win against Philly was a 3 pt win.

The win against CAR was a 3 pt win.

The ease or difficulty of victory was drastically different between the two but you count those the same.

Edit: Really, I don't mean to rain on your parade. It's still an interesting stat that you are providing.