Running the table? I wouldn't bet on it. Lower your expectations.

[MassPats38]

Also, considering we lost all of our games by 3 points or less, do you really want to take the position that the Texans keeping their opponents to only 3 points per game fewer than ours is not a big deal? If our D did that, we might be undefeated and we wouldn't be having that debate. Texans, just like all those other teams, only have to win by 1 point or more to beat us too.

Not the point that was offered for. The point is if the Texans are such a great defense and the Pats inferior, then the final scores would not be comparable. They are in fact comparable. Yardage comparisons are of minimal value as a statistic as games are won and lost in scores, not yardage given up.

And the Pats have won six straight after a rocky start in terms of offensive output. Even with injuries, do you honestly believe this team cannot score? And is this the same defense that lost those games? The fact is the defense is better, and the better the defense is, the larger the margin of error.

Not to mention, you allude to me using selective stats, yet you don't even mention they also faced better offenses overall and the fact that within those averages it includes a 42-24 blowout loss to Green Bay which is clearly an anomaly in their trend which skews those averages.

Better offenses by what measure? How is that assessment not subjective? They have played Detroit (giving up 31), Green Bay (giving up 42), and Chicago (largely without Cutler). They played the Jaguars (3rd worst offense - 37 points) twice, the Titans twice (20th in scoring), and the AFC East once. The Pats played the Bills twice (comparable output-wise to the Packers), and the the Colts (same). The Texans have given up 42, 37, 31, and 25 points this season. The Pats supposedly weaker defense has not given up more than 31 (twice), 30 and 26.

You claim some deep insight based on "reliable stats", but the truth is your arguments boil down to "you are your record" (useful only when setting playoff seeding, and oft misused by those who have no clue what the expression means in team to team comparisons on a given Sunday) and your own "meaningless subjective explanations", such as playing "better offenses" (that is a purely subjective assessment based on your opinion, not a "reliable stat"). You don't need average points as a statistic when you have the actual scores from the games, and the Texans have been gouged, on one occasion by a team whose one game total against the Texans represented about 20% of its season total. I guess that is readily dismissed by you as a statistical anomaly.

And while fans and critics were using the same line last year, in a large portion, they were right. We didn't, with Baltimore being the only real team we faced on our way to the Superbowl and we all know what happened.

The Pats beat Denver, which beat the 12-4 Steelers, beat the 12-4 Ravens, and lost against the Giants, which tore through the best teams in the NFC. I have no clue what you mean by "we all know what happened", unless you believe the 4 point loss in a championship game somehow suggests the Pats were not tested and failed when they met a good team, which is once again your subjective belief and nothing more.

If we get exposed, which I believe is a strong possibility over the next 2 weeks, it gives us an opportunity to better analyze, address and fix our problems before we play the games that matter most.

I don't see how this could be considered negative or pessimistic. If you implied above that the Pats would beat the Giants with better competition in 2011, see 2007 - the Pats played the Giants that season. For that matter, see 2011 - the Pats played them twice that year (preseason and regular season), and still lost. If you believe the success or failure of the Pats in the playoffs turns on what team is played during the season, then your thought process is a little too Madden football-esque. Momentum heading into the playoffs, talent level, key injuries, and depth are probably better indicators of playoff success. With coaching as it is, opponents are not mysteries when a season of game film is extensively analyzed.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Despite what you think, I'm not here to rain on any parades or to be pessimistic.

Are you sure you know what the word pessimistic and the phrase "rain on any parades" mean?

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Man, are you that miserable that you need to dig up your old thread to preen that we won by just seven points?

You keep harping so much about stats and ignore the intangibles and history, such as how tough division games are, how the Fins always play us tough in Miami, our OL situation today etc.

Wish you had told the Gints during their last two SBs that they could not win based on their stats and convinced them to mail it in.

And oh, most of us DO give more respect to the Texans than what you think.

Just because you lowered your expectations, it doesn't mean that the rest of us should follow suit as you arrogantly order us to in your title.

Forgot to add: given the injury status in our O, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats O doesn't score much and we end up losing. But I can still expect them to win every game, as I am hoping they do.

 

[mayoclinic]

If we get exposed, which I believe is a strong possibility over the next 2 weeks, it gives us an opportunity to better analyze, address and fix our problems before we play the games that matter most.

What exactly do you think getting "exposed" means? Do you expect the whole team to flash in front of Houston and SF?

I expected these to be 2 of our toughest games going into this season, and nothing that I've seen changes my opinion. I would be a fool not to admit the possibility that we could lose one or both of these games. Regardless of the outcome, I expect that the coaching staff will be diligent in analyzing them - as all other games - to assess and address problems and fix weaknesses before the playoffs.

But what do you expect to be "exposed"? That there are days when we can lose? No big surprise there. That there are days when our offense struggles? We've already shown that, especially when we get predictable with our play calling and get away from balance on offense. That our defense may not be good enough? Just about everyone on the planet has questioned the Pats' D, and I haven't heard anyone ready to declare it "fixed" just yet.

Win or lose, there will be flaws to be addressed, and useful experience from playing 2 of the best teams in the NFL. They are beatable, just as we are. And winning or losing against them in the next 2 weeks doesn't guarantee anything if we face them again in the playoffs (see NY Giants, 2007; Baltimore Ravens, 2009; NY Jets, 2010).

 

[Finnishfan]

1. You're the same two guys enthusiastically predicting that the 49ers will put up a '50 burger' on the Pats therefore there is no way for them to win the game.

Furthermore there is no evidence that Kapernick is capable of, as you put it, definitely putting up a '50-burger' as you claim. His offense, not just Kaepernick alone, put up 30 against the Bears (2 from a safety are not countable for the offense), scored 31 points, in a dome vs the Saints and a measly 13 points vs the Rams in OT. We don't even know if Kaepernick is the right choice over Alex Smith right now, just that he has a higher ceiling.

Where did I predict that that will happen? Skewing my comments will only make me jump on you over and over again. So here we go again...

We were discussing the potential of those teams. How Kaepernick performed or didnt perform on any given week has nothing to do with his potential. His potential is the very reason why he stole the starting job and if Harbaugh and the locker room buys to that potential, then who am I to doubt them.

But obvioulsy, you know better than Harbaugh.

Also that post was made after the Chicago game, and just for reference, I thought benching Smith was a poor decission. Can dig up the post I made on that topic on a thread discussing that decission, but surely thats not necessary..

2. Furthermore the entire premise of the thread title by OP is Lower your expectations.

Yet sometimes the discussions drift away from the original premise, which is unfortunate, but part of life in internet forums.

Gee.. wonder if this reply of yours fits that bill also?

3. You guys harp only on the Pats weaknesses while failing to address their strengths and also ignoring the weaknesses of the other contenders - 49ers, Texans, etc.. That's not avoiding 'homerism' it's known as pessimism.

Definition of PESSIMISM according to Merriam-Webster.com:

an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome

How nice of you to try and turn my own weapons against me. However, as I already mentioned, we were discussing potential, not expectations. I'm thinking I'm a slight optimist when I say our potential is #3 in this league. I would suspect that majority of the most educated football minds would place us slightly lower.

The further away from the "most educated concensus" you are from, the less realistic you are. IMO, there is no such thing as a realistic person, because we all have motives, values, opinions and emotions and to be realistic you would need to look past all of them.

4. If you can't handle commentary, try not posting in a message forum. People are free to interpet what you say based on what you typed.

You are free to interpret anything the way you like. But it isnt based on what I typed, as the previous points illustrate.

And I can handle commentary, as you see from this reply as well as the previous one. I choose to reply in this manner. If not for personal entertainment or anything else, then just to establish myself.

5. There's no poor judgment here, just too thin a skin on your part. If you don't want people to call you on the pity party, don't start/propogate any entire thread based on that entire concept.

Poor judgement is a continuing theme, as we are several posts down the road and you still miss the whole point of the discussion you intervened in.

6. I know that there are some people, sometimes known as 'negative nancies', who actually enjoy bringing out the negatives of the game and the team, rather than discussing the positive points. That's fine if that's your thing, just don't get offended when you get called on it. Other fans actually enjoy winning, 6 wins in a row and counting, and recognize that this team is pretty damn good.

Ok, so now I:
1. Enjoy bringing out the negatives of the game/team
2. Got offended by your post
3. Dont enjoy winning
4. Dont recognize that the team is good

Hope I didn't miss any parts of your amazing analysis of me. You really got me covered.

7. I've never claimed that the Pats are invincible or that the Texans and 49ers don't deserve respect. Rather, I don't see why we have to live in fear of them and 'lower our expectations' just because a couple of pessimists decided to join a thread about it.

I'm not saying you are delusional, nor am I claiming that you think Pats are unbeatable. I'm not even thinking that you disrespect the Texans or the 49ers. Only reason I jump on your posts is that you replied to us in a very belittling manner, and in many cases that is a sign of arrogance which is one of my least favourite personality features.

And for the record, I'm not rooting for lowering expectations. I think fans should always expect the best possible outcome, because that will make the sweet taste sweeter and the bitter taste more bitter. That is what life is all about, at least IMO.

But as you also said somewhere in this post: Everyone is entitled to react the way they want to.

8. The Patriots can compete with ANY team in this league. You talk about potential, how about actual production? The Pats showed they can annhilate a team to the tune of 59 points when all three units fire on all cylinders. How about the fact that no team can hang with them when they bring their A game to the table?

Again: potential is not the same as expectations.

However I do agree on all your points, except the last one. It's just not that simple, that you just go into a game and play great and come away with the W.

You make a plan, prepare to execute it to perfection, and then on Sunday you just do the best you can. But no matter how good the plan was supposed to be, if the opposing team has managed to come up with the perfect counter, you will struggle, no matter how good of a team you are or the opponent isn't.

Then there are also things like match up issues and such, which are impossible to counter. Because with 53 guys on the roster, you cannot prepare to cover all types of receivers will all the different skillsets etc... Sometimes the matchups work in your favour, sometimes they don't. It's not about "how well you play or don't play" it's just another cryptic variable that makes this game that much more interesting.

It's not about "winning" or "losing". They are results, not something you set out to do. You go out there to execute and play your best, and whether you END UP winning or losing depends on a whole lot more than how well each player does their job.

9. Running the table is entirely possible for this team, but not terribly important. It would be a great sign, but a lot of Superbowl winners have 'backed into' the playoffs and still won it all.

2011 Giants. 3-3 to end the season, 3-5 in the second half.
2010 Packers. 3-3 to end the season.
2009 Saints. 3-3 to end the season, including 3 straight losses to close it out.

I would trust in this team whichever way it would go. If we had the bye or the #6 seed, I would still bet on us to win the Superbowl.

But I also acknowledge this:
Under right circumstances, we can win on our worst day or lose on our best. Though latter applies with a handful of teams. That is the beauty of football. It's the "any given Sunday" factor.

10. No offense, but I give this thread a 1/5 stars. There will be some real football to talk about instead of meaningless predictions after the Pats have gone through the 49ers and Texans. I think the challenge will be good for them to go through regardless of the outcome. There's some great football ahead of us!

I don't know if you directed this to me, but I'm now the OP here. Nor do I agree with the idea in the OP for that matter, as I stated earlier.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Not the point that was offered for. The point is if the Texans are such a great defense and the Pats inferior, then the final scores would not be comparable. They are in fact comparable. Yardage comparisons are of minimal value as a statistic as games are won and lost in scores, not yardage given up.

And the Pats have won six straight after a rocky start in terms of offensive output. Even with injuries, do you honestly believe this team cannot score? And is this the same defense that lost those games? The fact is the defense is better, and the better the defense is, the larger the margin of error.



Better offenses by what measure? How is that assessment not subjective? They have played Detroit (giving up 31), Green Bay (giving up 42), and Chicago (largely without Cutler). They played the Jaguars (3rd worst offense - 37 points) twice, the Titans twice (20th in scoring), and the AFC East once. The Pats played the Bills twice (comparable output-wise to the Packers), and the the Colts (same). The Texans have given up 42, 37, 31, and 25 points this season. The Pats supposedly weaker defense has not given up more than 31 (twice), 30 and 26.

You claim some deep insight based on "reliable stats", but the truth is your arguments boil down to "you are your record" (useful only when setting playoff seeding, and oft misused by those who have no clue what the expression means in team to team comparisons on a given Sunday) and your own "meaningless subjective explanations", such as playing "better offenses" (that is a purely subjective assessment based on your opinion, not a "reliable stat"). You don't need average points as a statistic when you have the actual scores from the games, and the Texans have been gouged, on one occasion by a team whose one game total against the Texans represented about 20% of its season total. I guess that is readily dismissed by you as a statistical anomaly.



The Pats beat Denver, which beat the 12-4 Steelers, beat the 12-4 Ravens, and lost against the Giants, which tore through the best teams in the NFC. I have no clue what you mean by "we all know what happened", unless you believe the 4 point loss in a championship game somehow suggests the Pats were not tested and failed when they met a good team, which is once again your subjective belief and nothing more.



I don't see how this could be considered negative or pessimistic. If you implied above that the Pats would beat the Giants with better competition in 2011, see 2007 - the Pats played the Giants that season. For that matter, see 2011 - the Pats played them twice that year (preseason and regular season), and still lost. If you believe the success or failure of the Pats in the playoffs turns on what team is played during the season, then your thought process is a little too Madden football-esque. Momentum heading into the playoffs, talent level, key injuries, and depth are probably better indicators of playoff success. With coaching as it is, opponents are not mysteries when a season of game film is extensively analyzed.

I agree with your yards stats comments, and I never once pointed to any yards stats as some sort of meaningful stat because they are the most meaningless of all.

I don't see how you honestly compare Ryan Fitzpatrick and the Bills to Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay and saying they are similar on offense purely based on point production of one game. Point production, by itself, is not an accurate enough measurement without factoring in scoring efficiency.

The Bills are:
16th in scoring offense(ppg).
14th in yards per point.
20th in net yards per point.
are starting quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick.

So while the Bills may seem mediocre offensively, they are towards the bottom of the NFL when it comes to efficiency. A more efficient team will tear them apart.

Green Bay is:
12th in scoring offense(ppg)
9th in yards per point
10th in net yards per point

Chicago Bears are:
13th in scoring offense(ppg)
#2 in yards per point
#1 in net yards per point

Let's get something right. The Patriots are the Patriots primarily because of our scoring production and scoring efficiency, which is a great measurement for a team's execution and consistency. We are as good as we are because of those two categories. We have consistently been in the top 5 in the NFL year in and year out.

Huston is one such team this year, has also been this way last year and improved upon it. They have faced 4 other similar powerhouses: Denver, Chicago, Green Bay, and Baltimore. Two of those teams also happen to have a top 10 scoring defense. In addition they have beaten better defenses and only lost 1 game to Green Bay Packers.

We only beat 1: Denver Broncos. We have lost 3 games to top 10 defenses, less efficient offenses than our own, and have had our offense slowed to a halt by yet another top 10 defense in Miami.

My argument does not at all boil down to winning record or any one particular stat. My argument is based on all of the following components combined: scoring offense, scoring defense(points per game, point differential), scoring efficiency(yards per point, points per play), as well as strength of schedule/opponents.

It's a combination of all 3 categories. Since you seem to believe this is not adequate, if you have a better way of measuring teams and opponents statistically let me know.

 

[Finnishfan]

.....
I don't see how you honestly compare Ryan Fitzpatrick and the Bills to Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay and saying they are similar on offense purely based on point production of one game. Point production, by itself, is not an accurate enough measurement without factoring in scoring efficiency.

The Bills are:
16th in scoring offense(ppg).
14th in yards per point.
20th in net yards per point.
are starting quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick.

So while the Bills may seem mediocre offensively, they are towards the bottom of the NFL when it comes to efficiency. A more efficient team will tear them apart.

Green Bay is:
12th in scoring offense(ppg)
9th in yards per point
10th in net yards per point

Chicago Bears are:
13th in scoring offense(ppg)
#2 in yards per point
#1 in net yards per point

Let's get something right. The Patriots are the Patriots primarily because of our scoring production and scoring efficiency, which is a great measurement for a team's execution and consistency. We are as good as we are because of those two categories. We have consistently been in the top 5 in the NFL year in and year out.
.....

You are using the term scoring efficiency very loosely here.

Chicago Bears have 34 takeaways giving them a lot of short fields and 7 defensive touchdowns. Packers and Bills both have 18 takeaways and the Pack has 1 defensive TD while the Bills have none.

Most takeaways give you short fields and easy points. If you get the ball inside the opponents 20 then your yards/points is through the roof even if you advance the ball only 1 yard and kick the FG.

Furthermore, the biggest fail for that comparison number is when we look at this list:

New York Jets rank as the 19th most effective offense in the league based on that stat. Below them are teams such as:
Dallas Cowboys
Detroit Lions
Carolina Panthers
Indianapolis Colts (at 27th)
Oakland Raiders

I know you don't wanna say that the Jets are truely 19th most effective offense in the NFL.

 

[PatriotSeven]

You are using the term scoring efficiency very loosely here.

Chicago Bears have 34 takeaways giving them a lot of short fields and 7 defensive touchdowns. Packers and Bills both have 18 takeaways and the Pack has 1 defensive TD while the Bills have none.

Most takeaways give you short fields and easy points. If you get the ball inside the opponents 20 then your yards/points is through the roof even if you advance the ball only 1 yard and kick the FG.

Furthermore, the biggest fail for that comparison number is when we look at this list:

New York Jets rank as the 19th most effective offense in the league based on that stat. Below them are teams such as:
Dallas Cowboys
Detroit Lions
Carolina Panthers
Indianapolis Colts (at 27th)
Oakland Raiders

I know you don't wanna say that the Jets are truely 19th most effective offense in the NFL.

Yes takeaways and great field position increase efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that. So do special teams. But nothing affects it more than the ability to score points for the offensive yards gained. This affects the stat more than anything else over the long haul. If you're gaining yards, and not scoring points or limited to field goals, you will end up pretty inefficient. The nice thing about it as that for the most part it's an all inclusive statistic which doesn't operate in a vacuum, and when compared across all teams over a season its pretty reliable. However as you mentioned, it can be misleading if that is the ONLY stat you use.

So I will quote myself and leave it at that.

My argument does not at all boil down to winning record or any one particular stat. My argument is based on all of the following components combined: scoring offense, scoring defense(points per game, point differential), scoring efficiency(yards per point, points per play), as well as strength of schedule/opponents.

It's a combination of all 3 categories.

Once you cross reference the efficiency stats of a team against scoring offense and defense, you're very unlikely to find a team that slips through the cracks and isn't properly represented. For example simply checking net or margin ypp, it would show the Jets as the 25th most inefficient team in the NFL. Combine that with the fact they are 26th in scoring offense(output) and 22nd in scoring defense, and it matches up pretty much with what we think of them, no?

 

[Finnishfan]

Yes takeaways and great field position increase efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that. So do special teams. But nothing affects it more than the ability to score points for the offensive yards gained. This affects the stat more than anything else over the long haul. If you're gaining yards, and not scoring points or limited to field goals, you will end up pretty inefficient. The nice thing about it as that for the most part it's an all inclusive statistic which doesn't operate in a vacuum, and when compared across all teams over a season its pretty reliable. However as you mentioned, it can be misleading if that is the ONLY stat you use.

So I will quote myself and leave it at that.

Also, the 3 and out factor is not included in this. If you have lots of 3 and outs and then scoring drives where you get big plays etc, then is your offense truely effective in scoring? No, but because they don't gather many "non-scoring yards" they might look good in that stat.

If you really want one number that shows offensive scoring efficiency, then look at red zone scoring percentage, points/plays or punts per offensive score which all are a lot more telling about the proficiency of scoring offense.

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Points per Play on TeamRankings.com

Once you cross reference the efficiency stats of a team against scoring offense and defense, you're very unlikely to find a team that slips through the cracks and isn't properly represented. For example simply checking net or margin ypp, it would show the Jets as the 25th most inefficient team in the NFL. Combine that with the fact they are 26th in scoring offense(output) and 22nd in scoring defense, and it matches up pretty much with what we think of them, no?

Yeah but still they are trailed by the Colts, Lions, Panthers, Titans and Raiders, who all look MUCH more efficient in the good old "eyeball test".

Furthermore, here are those three categories that I presented in the previous part of my reply, and how the Jets rank in them (and who is behind them).

Points per offensive play:
Jets rank 28th followed by
Jacksonville
Philadelphia
Arizona
Kansas City

Punts per offensive score
Jets rank 28th followed by
Cleveland
Jacksonville
Carolina
Arizona

Red zone efficiency:
Jets rank 25th followed by
Dallas
Philadelphia
Oakland
St.Louis
Arizona
Cleveland
Kansas City

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Holy crapola. Hey, how's about scoring efficiency when the barometer is falling and the moon is in a new phase? And don't forget to take the time to list all the teams' particular positions in a long column. Thank you.

 

[MassPats38]

I agree with your yards stats comments, and I never once pointed to any yards stats as some sort of meaningful stat because they are the most meaningless of all.

I don't see how you honestly compare Ryan Fitzpatrick and the Bills to Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay and saying they are similar on offense purely based on point production of one game. Point production, by itself, is not an accurate enough measurement without factoring in scoring efficiency.

Try reading that post again. I was pointing to total points allowed by teams as a measure of success, and stated measuring teams by the very yardage statistic you seem to embrace with this offensive statistic you now introduce is goofy. Games are lost and won in total points. That does not take any analysis. Look at points scored and points allowed. And you do not need any statistics when you have final scores. And real, not contrived, statistics on actual performance prediction recognize trend data (e.g., a baseball player may bat .250 on a season but hit .450 during a 100 at bat sequence - by your apparent analysis, it doesn't matter as a pitcher when you face that batter. The same is true of NFL teams, and ignores inconvenient facts like the last 3 games the Texans have played before the Pats have to face them.).

Scoring efficiency, by definition of efficiency, would be points per opportunity, not yards per point. Play a lousy team, get lots of opportunities, lots of missed opportunities, lots of yards, lots of points, and win with this metric. Have a great defense that gives you a short field consistently, and you fail this metric. Good teams put points on the board with opportunities, not with yards. If you find any expert that embraces the validity of this statistic as a measure of a good team, fell free to post a link. Otherwise, it is just your opinion, which would be subjective, not objective.

Scoring defense? Certainly a good indicator of a good defense. No dispute here.

Strength of schedule? Fairly meaningless. It changes during the season, is a poor predictor of future schedules, and great teams are hindered because they serve as a benefit to other schedule strength because they do not count in their own schedule and they actually make the teams they play weaker with losses.

I gave you actual performances by the Texans, and you discount that. Try looking at sample size in statistics if you are going to dismiss that as analysis. 4 games out of 12, when measuring a team, is statistically significant.

And feel free to use trend data that would be a better analysis of current team strength than season statistics that ignore injuries, opponent injuries, replacement officials, etc., if you purport to be objective.

The reality is season statistics are not tremendously useful game to game, other than the general observation of good defenses and good offenses. "Any given Sunday" is a better indicator based on matchups and health. I will acknowledge the Pats can lose to any or all team based on that, but I do not predict it and I certainly don't hope for it. The reality, in offering your post and supporting your claim with morphing statistical predicates that predict nothing game-to-game, is you are a pessimist who believes himself to be a realist.

You want realist? Try Vegas. Pats by 4 I believe against the Texans (by 1 if you take away home field). I don't believe Vegas uses stats, so maybe you can send them yours.

 

[jradMITEX]

Vegas line is purely based on the number the would hypothetically bring action equally on both sides, the Patriots by the nature of their past successes will garner more support than a team with little historic success and popularity. Basically the line is a popularity contest in many ways only indirectly based on the underlying analysis of the match up.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Also, the 3 and out factor is not included in this. If you have lots of 3 and outs and then scoring drives where you get big plays etc, then is your offense truely effective in scoring? No, but because they don't gather many "non-scoring yards" they might look good in that stat.

If you really want one number that shows offensive scoring efficiency, then look at red zone scoring percentage, points/plays or punts per offensive score which all are a lot more telling about the proficiency of scoring offense.

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Points per Play on TeamRankings.com



Yeah but still they are trailed by the Colts, Lions, Panthers, Titans and Raiders, who all look MUCH more efficient in the good old "eyeball test".

Furthermore, here are those three categories that I presented in the previous part of my reply, and how the Jets rank in them (and who is behind them).

Points per offensive play:
Jets rank 28th followed by
Jacksonville
Philadelphia
Arizona
Kansas City

Punts per offensive score
Jets rank 28th followed by
Cleveland
Jacksonville
Carolina
Arizona

Red zone efficiency:
Jets rank 25th followed by
Dallas
Philadelphia
Oakland
St.Louis
Arizona
Cleveland
Kansas City

The eyeball test is a completely subjective way of measuring a team. For example I don't agree the Jets look less efficient than those teams. The Jets dominated and blew out the Colts, and the Colts are hanging by a thread in every single win and a have a negative point differential. They lead the league in interceptions and 27th in giveaways. They are very inefficient and quite likely to get blown out again when they run into a good team. Lions, Titans, Panthers, Oakland are all 3 wins or less teams. Are you sure your eye test of the Jets isn't at least slightly biased?

If 3 and outs bother you(this is accounted for in net yards per point btw) then you can't turn around and use an even more flawed stat to claim as a better alternative. Red Zone efficiency is a pretty meaningless situational stat that are mainly used to break down a particular section of a team, not your scoring offense as a whole, and of course it would be included in something like yards per point anyway. Just think about the amount of scores that take place from outside the red zone each season. It shows nothing about offensive efficiency outside the redzone because it can't keep track if it takes you 5 drives just to reach the end zone once. It just measures scoring from the red zone. It says nothing about the amount of gained yards(total work output) but failed to reach the endzone or perform a scoring attempt.

For example 3 of the top 10 teams in td scoring % are losing teams, Carolina, Detroit and New Orleans. Carolina is 3rd in red zone %, but they can't even muster up 20 points a game and are ranked 23rd in scoring production. On the other hand, there are no teams that are top 10 in yards per point margin with a losing record.

A great stat needs to have a strong correlation to winning %. We're talking about ranking teams as a whole. Red Zone efficiency vs yards per point is a no contest when it comes to correlation to winning percentage.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, it just got a little bit easier.....

The Miami Dolphins have announced that left tackle Jake Long is being placed on injured reserve with a triceps injury and will not play again this season. Now the question is whether Long will ever play for the Dolphins again.

Jake Long done for season, maybe done for Miami | ProFootballTalk

 

[supafly]

Vegas line is purely based on the number the would hypothetically bring action equally on both sides, the Patriots by the nature of their past successes will garner more support than a team with little historic success and popularity. Basically the line is a popularity contest in many ways only indirectly based on the underlying analysis of the match up.

While that is certainly true on some levels (SB46 where the Pats were 3 pts favorites may be one good example), there are plenty of bettors who are more than comfortable picking the Houston Texans to win the whole thing, as their odds were just as good, if not better, than the NEP just 2 weeks ago.

Those odds have changed over the course of the past 2 weeks due to many variables, and are now practically the same for either team to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.

As I said a couple of days ago, I would expect the initial 4.5 point line to move down to 2 by gameday, and it has already started to do just that, as it is at 3.5 right now.

The bottom line fact is that the NEP are not only 3.5 pt favorites over the team with the best record in football, but the team that the majority of casual fans have picked to win the AFC since about the 3rd or 4th game in. While that certainly doesn't paint the whole picture of the matchup, it definitely gives us a nice glimpse of what the oddsmakers think.

It depends on what you are specifically talking about by bringing this up? Is it just this one game of NE/HOU? Or is it the odds of NE running the table and ending up 13-3? If it is the latter, than I would doubt that Vegas favors that to happen very much, especially with HOU and SF in a 6 day stretch back to back.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

we won't run table...if we had gronk..edelman..mankins ect..i think we could

 

[juny]

Well, it just got a little bit easier.....



Jake Long done for season, maybe done for Miami | ProFootballTalk

was watching the games sunday at the bar near by some dolphins fans. when i pointed out that jake long got hurt, they didn't seem to care one bit. they were obviously disappointed with his performance this year.

 

[Sciz]

was watching the games sunday at the bar near by some dolphins fans. when i pointed out that jake long got hurt, they didn't seem to care one bit. they were obviously disappointed with his performance this year.

Yeah, at least three tackles in the AFC East have been better than Long, and the Pats have two of them.

 

[Haterproof]

we won't run table...if we had gronk..edelman..mankins ect..i think we could

We've heard this before. Screw injuries. Every team is dealing with injuries @ this point of the season. I'll be looking for the OP with a flashlight in broad daylight if we beat Houston & SF!

 

[PatriotSeven]

Try reading that post again. I was pointing to total points allowed by teams as a measure of success, and stated measuring teams by the very yardage statistic you seem to embrace with this offensive statistic you now introduce is goofy. Games are lost and won in total points. That does not take any analysis. Look at points scored and points allowed. And you do not need any statistics when you have final scores. And real, not contrived, statistics on actual performance prediction recognize trend data (e.g., a baseball player may bat .250 on a season but hit .450 during a 100 at bat sequence - by your apparent analysis, it doesn't matter as a pitcher when you face that batter. The same is true of NFL teams, and ignores inconvenient facts like the last 3 games the Texans have played before the Pats have to face them.).

Scoring efficiency, by definition of efficiency, would be points per opportunity, not yards per point. Play a lousy team, get lots of opportunities, lots of missed opportunities, lots of yards, lots of points, and win with this metric. Have a great defense that gives you a short field consistently, and you fail this metric. Good teams put points on the board with opportunities, not with yards. If you find any expert that embraces the validity of this statistic as a measure of a good team, fell free to post a link. Otherwise, it is just your opinion, which would be subjective, not objective.

Scoring defense? Certainly a good indicator of a good defense. No dispute here.

Strength of schedule? Fairly meaningless. It changes during the season, is a poor predictor of future schedules, and great teams are hindered because they serve as a benefit to other schedule strength because they do not count in their own schedule and they actually make the teams they play weaker with losses.

I gave you actual performances by the Texans, and you discount that. Try looking at sample size in statistics if you are going to dismiss that as analysis. 4 games out of 12, when measuring a team, is statistically significant.

And feel free to use trend data that would be a better analysis of current team strength than season statistics that ignore injuries, opponent injuries, replacement officials, etc., if you purport to be objective.

The reality is season statistics are not tremendously useful game to game, other than the general observation of good defenses and good offenses. "Any given Sunday" is a better indicator based on matchups and health. I will acknowledge the Pats can lose to any or all team based on that, but I do not predict it and I certainly don't hope for it. The reality, in offering your post and supporting your claim with morphing statistical predicates that predict nothing game-to-game, is you are a pessimist who believes himself to be a realist.

You want realist? Try Vegas. Pats by 4 I believe against the Texans (by 1 if you take away home field). I don't believe Vegas uses stats, so maybe you can send them yours.

First of all most of this thread was based on scoring offense and defense and point differential. However that is not enough which is why I added scoring efficiency, and yards per point is not simply a yardage statistic. So if that is what you are referring to as a yard stat, you are confused. It's an efficiency ratio.

In any sport you have teams that can produce a lot of points. But how efficiently you score, matters. Two teams whom each have averaged 30 ppg, but one has managed to do it more efficiently, will set each other apart when they go head to head. Over the same number of possessions in a game the more efficient scoring team will quite often score more points and win.

Yards per point is just a very simple and eloquent statistic to measure that which you are describing as points per "opportunities". Instead of trying to break it down into sub categories and individual vacuum stats like possessions, drives or plays, this is a stat that does a very good job of putting it all together, this is another way of doing it. In the NFL there is no "opportunities" statistic which we can use to measure in a mathematical way. And if there was it would be very subjective. The best we have are plays. But if you go by that, then every play is an "opportunity" to score. Points per play is also an efficiency statistic, but it has been proven to be less indicative than yards per point. The culmination of all the different types of work a team puts in(plays, possessions, penalties, etc) results in yards. Yards is the measurement of "work". Points are the results. Efficiency is a ratio of those two, by definition.

Personally I have been using it for years so I don't need a whole of of expert to tell me it's reliable, because the results speak for themselves, and I don't know of who you would consider an expert, but Kerry J Bryne of SI wrote a pretty good piece on it and the 49ers last year: Jim Harbaugh's excellent coaching has the 49ers a surprising 5-1 - Kerry J. Byrne - SI.com

Just remember this is a measurement of scoring efficiency, not the overall consensus of a good team. But it is one of the primary indicators of a good team. I repeatedly stated that a combination of scoring efficiency, points differential as well as performance against other top teams in the league is necessary in order to draw conclusions and determine the best teams.

All I can tell you is that yard per point is one of the top stats when it comes to winning correlation. Look it up. Or use it for yourself.

Finally strength of schedule is a very useful measurement 12 weeks into a season, but I was referring more to strength of opponents which is especially true, when we consider the teams in question here have proven to be solid teams the year before. Baltimore, Chicago, Green Bay, Houston...they all carried over as strong teams from 2011. The strength of schedule the NFL uses that's based on prior years is horrible yes, but that's not what I was referring to. I didn't discount the individual performances you showed me, and I am using the entire body of work, in addition to selective games like you did.

No denying that serious injuries to star players can cause issues with any statistic and can be important to winning, but no one with any sense would use a stat while keeping their head in the sand. Nevertheless, in the NFL, great, consistent teams manage to overcome injuries, as long as it's not a quarterback, and maintain their execution.

In the end, I repeat once again, all of those things should go into consideration. We are talking about the top 2 teams in the NFL separated by a slim margin. As I said, scoring production and scoring efficiency alone, is not enough on their own to come to this realization. It requires those other factors as well. But when we factor in performance against top teams, top defenses as well as injuries, it swings the pendulum towards the other side. And considering the evidence, not on our side.

PS: Bettors frequently use yards per point to beat Vegas, and yes for game-to-game predictions. Vegas doesn't pick favorites. They set lines that create action. Lines which can be easily beat with a combination of yards per point and point differential stats, if you know how to use it as well as some common sense. For example the simplest(not most accurate) calculation you can do is just taking the yards allowed by a team's defense and divide it by the offensive yards per point of each team, and the numbers come out Houston 29 - Patriots 27. But there's probably a few more things you should take into consideration and just take that to be more of your starting point. Either way, if I was a sports gambler, I wouldn't take the -4 point spread in favor of the Pats.