Predict Patrots 2010 record

[Kontradiction]

Maybe you can understand it this way.
We are talking about the average ranking. You have solved for how many teams there would be if you split the league in half.
To solve for the average ranking, you must add all of the values together and divide by the number of values. Avg=sum of numbers/amount of numbers
You can be ranked with each number from 1 thorugh 32. 1+2+3....+32= 528
528/32=16.5

See now it works for any quantity.
3 teams 1+2+3=6/3=2 2 is the average ranking for a 3 team league

4 teams 1+2+3+4=10/4=2.5 Less than 2nd is above average, more is below average, there is no 'average' team out of an even #, so an average ranking lies in between the 2 teams in the middle

Got it yet?

Yes, what you did was find the mean. That's the same thing I did. After that, you have to find where that arithmetic average ranks among the rest of the league. That's what I did as well. But regardless, I'm just going to let this go in the best interest of this thread. You seem to be doing the exact same thing I did but not really understanding it. If you want to discuss this more, PM me and I'll explain to you how I got my results. Perhaps in the PM you can answer my question as well, since you don't seem to want to do it in the thread.

 

[Kontradiction]

Perhaps a team by team vote?

For example:

Better defense, NE or BAL?

I'd expect that BAL, DAL, NYJ, SF, GB, SD and MIN would be agreed upon without too much argument, and you could go from there. Teams like Denver and Pittsburgh would be more difficult to place, because of their Jekyll/Hyde situations, but some approximate range could be worked out.

NE vs. BAL - BAL
NE vs. DAL - DAL
NE vs. NYJ - NYJ
NE vs. SF - SF
NE vs. GB - NE
NE vs. SD - NE
NE vs. MIN - MIN
NE vs. First half DEN - DEN, NE vs. Second half DEN - NE
NE vs. PITT - PITT, that is a little closer to call though.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, what you did was find the mean. That's the same thing I did. After that, you have to find where that arithmetic average ranks among the rest of the league. That's what I did as well. But regardless, I'm just going to let this go in the best interest of this thread. You seem to be doing the exact same thing I did but not really understanding it. If you want to discuss this more, PM me and I'll explain to you how I got my results. Perhaps in the PM you can answer my question as well, since you don't seem to want to do it in the thread.

Its not the same thing you did. You divided the number of teams by 2, which is wrong.
There is no need for you to explain anything, I know exactly what you did wrong, all is left is for you to accept the laws of matematics.
Just explain to me how more teams can be below average than above average and your calculation could not be flawed.

If you cant understand that your method that says the the 2nd ranked team out of 3 if below average is wrong, what is the point.
You are wrong, I have explained it over and over again.
The average ranking out of 32 teams is the middle of the 16th and the 17th. I just cant argue iron clad mathematical facts with a guy who will say anything to not be wrong.

I've answered your question many times. Continuing to ask will not change my answer to the one you want.

 

[Kontradiction]

If you cant understand that your method that says the the 2nd ranked team out of 3 if below average is wrong, what is the point.
You are wrong, I have explained it over and over again.
The average ranking out of 32 teams is the middle of the 16th and the 17th. I just cant argue iron clad mathematical facts with a guy who will say anything to not be wrong.

So basically you're splitting hairs? Got it. I find the average to be in the middle (16th). Anything with a higher number than that (16.5) would be outside of the average. Since 32 is divisible into a whole number, the average lies in one and one spot only... 16th. You don't go from 16th to 17th, split the number into a percentage, and say "well, 16th to 17th is EXACTLY average", because it isn't. 16th is the, as you say, "ironclad" average. There isn't anything else. Anything from 17-32 is below average with the degree of difficulty getting lower and vice versa from 15-1.

As for your last sentence, being that you've been the one arguing against mathematics throughout this entire thread...

 

[Kontradiction]

Its not the same thing you did. You divided the number of teams by 2, which is wrong.

Now I know why this mathematics argument has devolved the way it has. You, for some reason, know how to find the mean, but you have no idea what it is called. Let me explain it to you in a method that a second grader would understand since you've had trouble understanding it any other way...

1. I got the mean. That means that I took every team's offensive ranking that we played in 2009, added them all up, then divided the sum by the amount of teams we played (n = 16).

2. To find out where our offensive schedule difficulty ranked after finding the mean, I took the number of teams in the league (32) and divided them in half (which is 2) to get a half-way point of 16. Being that 32 divides into a whole number, 16 is exactly average. 15-1 is above average with varying degrees of difficulty as you move up and 17-32 is below average with varying degrees of difficult as you move down.

3. Being that we were at 17 (16.5 according to you since you're now splitting hairs), our schedule ranked at VERY slightly below average, hovering around average.

You see? It's simple. I found the mean and then plotted where that mean ranked at based on the amount of teams in the league. This is actually very, very simple stuff that you shouldn't be missing.

I've answered your question many times. Continuing to ask will not change my answer to the one you want.

No you haven't. If you had, we wouldn't be sitting here still. You've said at one point that you don't believe that they're the fifth best defense in the league then you've said at other points that, according to the most important statistic, they are. So which one is it?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Dude, how can you be so condescending when you are wrong?
Dividing the number of teams by 2 does not give you the midpoint.
Here is an example.
If there are 3 teams, your method says the average is 1.5 and the 2nd ranked team is 'decidely below average' when they are the average.
Its a math problem, and you are wrong.
There are 32 teams. The first 16 are above average, the bottom 16 below average. That makes 16 above average and 17 below average.
Rounding up is ridiculous, as well as irrelevant.

If there were 3 teams, the 2nd team would be the median (aka, average. Most people wouldn't use the mean here). The 17th-32nd ranked teams in the league are all below average, by the very definition of the term, and that's true whether you use mean or median. Realistically, it's not the most meaningful distinction, since it implies some structure/relative linearity that we can't assume to exist in the NFL, so in practical terms it would probably be better to just call 14 through 20 or so average, and call it a day. That doesn't make Kontra wrong, though.

 

[Kontradiction]

Eh, I'm just going to call it a day as is. This has become tedious enough. There are much more interesting things to talk about at this point. I'll let you have the last word, Andy.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Man, you all have guts! This is one season I HAVE to wait until deep into camp before I predict. Do you know what one of the biggest keys for me will be? Cunningham.

Before I get ripped a new one, hear me out. Last year, opposing QBs had enough time to set up picnic lunches, and floss their teeth, before having to get rid of the ball. It was the worse I've seen, as far as a lack of consistent pressure.

There is not alot the team has done to potentially change that, save for drafting Cunningham. If he doesn't do much, where will the improved pass rush come from? If he does well, O.K. then. The difference could be huge, IMHO.

If he surprises, the sky is the limit.

That said, I do see improvement in several places, which I'll post about at some point. It's just this incredibly difficult schedule that gives me pause.

So, let me go out on a limb and say they will be between 6 and 10 and 14 and 2, but I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

 

[Destroyer]

Not exactly how this predict a record thread turned into comparing New Englands defense with the likes of Green Bay and San Francisco, but whatever. I'll try and bring this baby back on topic.

I think we'll go 11-5, beating out the Dolphins by a game(10-6), the Jets by 3(8-8) and the Bills by 9(2-14). Here is where I see the wins and losses.

Cinncinati - W
@ NYJ - L
Buffalo - W
@ Miami - W
Baltimore - W
@ SD - L
Minnesota - L
@ Cleveland - W
@ Pittsburgh - L
Indy - W
@ Detroit - W
NYJ - W
@ Chicago - W
Green Bay - L
@ Buffalo - W
Miami - W

Enjoy.

 

[MossWelkowski]

This is my prediction 13-3

Cinncinati - W
@ NYJ - W
Buffalo - W
@ Miami - L
Baltimore - L
@ SD - W
Minnesota - L
@ Cleveland - W
@ Pittsburgh - W
Indy - W
@ Detroit - W
NYJ - W
@ Chicago - W
Green Bay - W
@ Buffalo - W
Miami - W

Some key notes:

1. The more I look at the schedule, the more I feel like the patriots got lucky with the toughest games at home this year. Minn, GB, Indy, and Baltimore at home is HUGE.

2. Game 4 at Miami scares me. Pats always stumble at Miami. I expect a loss.

3. For the first time in a while I am anticipating the Jets games more than the Colts game this year. Anyone else feel the same way?

Thoughts?

 

[Ring 6]

Now I know why this mathematics argument has devolved the way it has. You, for some reason, know how to find the mean, but you have no idea what it is called. Let me explain it to you in a method that a second grader would understand since you've had trouble understanding it any other way...

1. I got the mean. That means that I took every team's offensive ranking that we played in 2009, added them all up, then divided the sum by the amount of teams we played (n = 16).

2. To find out where our offensive schedule difficulty ranked after finding the mean, I took the number of teams in the league (32) and divided them in half (which is 2) to get a half-way point of 16. Being that 32 divides into a whole number, 16 is exactly average. 15-1 is above average with varying degrees of difficulty as you move up and 17-32 is below average with varying degrees of difficult as you move down.

This is your mistake. Again if there weer 4 teams you would be saying 1 is above avg 1 is avg and 2 are below avg. That just cant be right.
You kinda had it in #1, as I showed you early. Add all of the rankings of all 32 teams then divide by 32, and you get 16.5.
In other words since there is an even # of teams, half are above average and half are below. The mid point between 16-17 is the average.

3. Being that we were at 17 (16.5 according to you since you're now splitting hairs), our schedule ranked at VERY slightly below average, hovering around average.

There is no way it is 17. It was only 16.5 if you make the statistical error of including the game they played against us.

You see? It's simple. I found the mean and then plotted where that mean ranked at based on the amount of teams in the league. This is actually very, very simple stuff that you shouldn't be missing.

Amazingly you are condescending when you are totally wrong.

Once again.
Average would mean there are an equal # of teams above as below.
Your whacky formula has
15 above avg
1 average
16 below average, which is wrong.

You have to get through your head that dividing the # of teams by 2 does not get you the mid point. Its math, its fact, you are wrong.

Just explain to me how more teams can be below avg than avg.
I knew when you started using terminology to make you sound smarter than you had no clue. Just read what I am typing and you will learn something.

No you haven't. If you had, we wouldn't be sitting here still. You've said at one point that you don't believe that they're the fifth best defense in the league then you've said at other points that, according to the most important statistic, they are. So which one is it?

No. I have said that this discussion has never been about an arbitrary 'best' judgment. You just don't want that to be my answer so we go on and on and on.

 

[Ring 6]

So basically you're splitting hairs? Got it. I find the average to be in the middle (16th). Anything with a higher number than that (16.5) would be outside of the average. Since 32 is divisible into a whole number, the average lies in one and one spot only... 16th. You don't go from 16th to 17th, split the number into a percentage, and say "well, 16th to 17th is EXACTLY average", because it isn't. 16th is the, as you say, "ironclad" average. There isn't anything else. Anything from 17-32 is below average with the degree of difficulty getting lower and vice versa from 15-1.

As for your last sentence, being that you've been the one arguing against mathematics throughout this entire thread...

Ihave been pointing out over and over again in terms now that a 5th grader could understand, that your math is wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

If there were 3 teams, the 2nd team would be the median (aka, average. Most people wouldn't use the mean here). The 17th-32nd ranked teams in the league are all below average, by the very definition of the term, and that's true whether you use mean or median. Realistically, it's not the most meaningful distinction, since it implies some structure/relative linearity that we can't assume to exist in the NFL, so in practical terms it would probably be better to just call 14 through 20 or so average, and call it a day. That doesn't make Kontra wrong, though.

Well, of course he is wrong, because he is using a mathematical equation that says
1-15 are above average
16 isaverage
17-32 are belkow average
You said about the same this right there.
The average ranking in an even # of teams has to be in between 2 teams, so half are above and half are below.
Maybe you can explain that to him so he can understand because I've tried about 8 different ways.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

13-3 - Just do it Pats!

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

This is my prediction 13-3

Cinncinati - W
@ NYJ - W
Buffalo - W
@ Miami - L
Baltimore - L
@ SD - W
Minnesota - L
@ Cleveland - W
@ Pittsburgh - W
Indy - W
@ Detroit - W
NYJ - W
@ Chicago - W
Green Bay - W
@ Buffalo - W
Miami - W

Some key notes:

1. The more I look at the schedule, the more I feel like the patriots got lucky with the toughest games at home this year. Minn, GB, Indy, and Baltimore at home is HUGE.

2. Game 4 at Miami scares me. Pats always stumble at Miami. I expect a loss.

3. For the first time in a while I am anticipating the Jets games more than the Colts game this year. Anyone else feel the same way?

Thoughts?

So the Pats go 1-6 in true road games last year and now they go 7-1? Makes perfect sense.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

So the Pats go 1-6 in true road games last year and now they go 7-1? Makes perfect sense.

Ya but look at our road games! The absolute worst I could see us going on the road this year is 4-4. Sure, 7-1 might have a bit of a homer taint to it, but a vast improvement on our away games is entirely realistic this year.

 

[mloyko]

After watching a weeks worth of training camp I think this team as a whole will be much improved. I feel very confortable saying they will go 11-5 with a real chance to be 12-4.
Here are reasons why:

- The obvious one is that Brady will be much healthier and I fully expect him to be his old self especially late in games.

-With the addition of the TE, Tate, Price, Holt.. Brady will have a ton more weapons than last year. Our inability to score in the red zone is what killed this team last year. We went able to close teams off because we settled for field goals insted of TDS. I think we now have 3 much better red zone threats in Gronko, Hernandez, and even Crumpler in the red zone because of his size.

- I expect the defense to be much mor versatile, athletic and with a year under the belt of most of the players (except Spikes, Cunningham, McCourty) they should be much more sound. Everyone is talking abou pressure off the ends which without of doubt looks like it could be a week spot. But with BB being more involved in the D i expect to see better designed blitzes meaning more pressure up the middle with Mayo,Spikes and Chung who looks like he is going to be a great blitzer. Also I think McCourty with his speed will be a great blitzes of the of nickel corner position. There are other ways to get pressure on the QB than just with OLB/DE and I think the Pats will utilize this.

- Special teams last year were awful. Worst punt unit in the game.. our kick returners were awful last year..both should be much improved. With Tate, Edelman,McCourty all able to return kicks and Mesko whose leg is soo much better than Hanson's both these units should give us better field position thru out the year.

- Last year all we had to hear about was how we will miss Bruschi, Seymour, Harrison,Vrabel... with all of them leaving in the same year BB expedited the turnover. Instead of phasing guys in and out he did it all in one year knowing that last year we would probably take a step back as many of the players had to step in and take over. I think last year was as bad as you will see this team play as long as BB and Brady are on this roster.

I think 11-5 is realistic with a chance to be 12-4.

 

[Timbo717]

My guess would be 9-7 or 10-6. Outside shot at 11-5.

Another guess would be that Brady & the passing game improve over last season, RB more or less stays the same and OL is still up in the air. If healthy, I would say improved.

Defense I just don't know. Having a year under their belt will help the younger guys, so I would expect some improvement but they still need to show they can make stops at the most important times.

Obviously just guesses at this point. No idea on what games I would expect them to lose. Just looking at the schedule there are a bunch of games that could really go either way.

 

[Kontradiction]

So the Pats go 1-6 in true road games last year and now they go 7-1? Makes perfect sense.

This isn't 2009 anymore. There have been a significant amount of changes to this team and to the schedule, if you haven't noticed. Plus, as has been mentioned, the road schedule is leagues easier than the home schedule.

 

[goheels22002]

Man, you all have guts! This is one season I HAVE to wait until deep into camp before I predict. Do you know what one of the biggest keys for me will be? Cunningham.

Before I get ripped a new one, hear me out. Last year, opposing QBs had enough time to set up picnic lunches, and floss their teeth, before having to get rid of the ball. It was the worse I've seen, as far as a lack of consistent pressure.

There is not alot the team has done to potentially change that, save for drafting Cunningham. If he doesn't do much, where will the improved pass rush come from? If he does well, O.K. then. The difference could be huge, IMHO.

If he surprises, the sky is the limit.

The key to this is indeed the pass rush defensively, but it's as much about the young, fast DBs as the LBs masquerading as DEs in the 3-4. If this DB group is as good as it can possibly be, sacks and rushed passes should go up.

Last year we saw little movement before the ball was snapped because of youth and the loss of Vrabel and Bruschi being able to call plays and read defenses. TBC and Mayo can probably call more schemes knowing the DBs can stick the opposition receivers.

This may be the best DB group since 05. Big tough safeties and skilled speed at CB with some depth to deal with fatigue and 5 receiver sets. The rookie should be terrific and the last two drafts worth of DBs should start paying dividends in this complicated pass defense.

Stopping the run will still be a challenge unless the LBs show some maturity in reading the line and the backs. Ray Rice is still a recurring nightmare.

11-5 in 2010 which should get them into the playoffs. 2008 still sucks for having a good year and not getting in. I see a sweep of Buffalo and splits with Miami and the Jets and now big wins over MN and Indy. The opener is a definite win that will start the TO melt-down. GB is a loss and trouble with Chicago.