aluminum seats
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,450
- Reaction score
- 11,330
It’s known that the Pats play consistently better in the second half of the season than the first since Belichick took the reins—thought I’d take a minute to quantify it.
Sure enough, the Pats have improved in the season’s last 8 games compared to the first 8 every year under Belichick but one: they fell to 4-4 in the 2nd half of 2009 after starting 6-2. That was the year of the infamous “4th & 2” game—the team pretty much collapsed after that. That team was, I gather, the least favorite of Belichick’s during his time here, so it’s not surprising they showed such uncharacteristic softness as the weather turned colder.
--By season, the differential from the first half of the season compared to the second has been: +1, +3, +1, +2, even, +2, even, even, +1, -2, +2, +3.
--5 out of the 6 years the Pats have gone either 7-1 or 8-0 in the second half, they’ve won the AFC, winning the Super Bowl, obviously, 3 times of the 5. The only year they failed to advance the Super Bowl after winning at least 7 games in the 2nd half was 2010, where they botched the playoff game against the Jets.
--The Pats have gone 6-2 or better in 9 out of the 12 years—every year but 2000, 2002, and 2009.
--Bottom line, not that it’s any surprise to people here, you can predict with a pretty high degree of confidence (with the constant caveat of injuries, acts of God, etc.) that the Pats will finish either 12-4 or 13-3. Which would likely be enough for a bye. I realize the bye has lost its luster for some due to the Pats getting it a couple of times and not winning the Super Bowl, but come on: two weeks to prepare for a home game, which if you win you’re in the AFC Championship game? Yes please.
Sure enough, the Pats have improved in the season’s last 8 games compared to the first 8 every year under Belichick but one: they fell to 4-4 in the 2nd half of 2009 after starting 6-2. That was the year of the infamous “4th & 2” game—the team pretty much collapsed after that. That team was, I gather, the least favorite of Belichick’s during his time here, so it’s not surprising they showed such uncharacteristic softness as the weather turned colder.
--By season, the differential from the first half of the season compared to the second has been: +1, +3, +1, +2, even, +2, even, even, +1, -2, +2, +3.
--5 out of the 6 years the Pats have gone either 7-1 or 8-0 in the second half, they’ve won the AFC, winning the Super Bowl, obviously, 3 times of the 5. The only year they failed to advance the Super Bowl after winning at least 7 games in the 2nd half was 2010, where they botched the playoff game against the Jets.
--The Pats have gone 6-2 or better in 9 out of the 12 years—every year but 2000, 2002, and 2009.
--Bottom line, not that it’s any surprise to people here, you can predict with a pretty high degree of confidence (with the constant caveat of injuries, acts of God, etc.) that the Pats will finish either 12-4 or 13-3. Which would likely be enough for a bye. I realize the bye has lost its luster for some due to the Pats getting it a couple of times and not winning the Super Bowl, but come on: two weeks to prepare for a home game, which if you win you’re in the AFC Championship game? Yes please.
