Patriotic Fervor
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,520
- Reaction score
- 83
i'll cut you some slack, you obviously haven't seen the raiders play before. sifting through the numbers isn't going to give you an accurate depiction of how they play on the field. you are suggesting that teams will run on them and so they don't have to pass on them. but if you looked at their secondary, you'd see another reason why you'd want to run instead of pass. the raiders might have a better secondary than the patriots...
Well, I'm not going to cut you any slack on what is obviously a very misinformed post.
The Raiders finished exactly where they did for exactly one reason - they stunk! They stunk up and down. That is a team that has so many problems, you don't know where to start.
They can Art Shell, who did the team a huge favor by agreeing to coach them - when no one else wanted to! You wait and see how difficult it is for them to fill that post. There isn't enough money in Fort Knox to provide adequate compensation for that hapless, hopeless morass of a job.
And here, in an astounding display of FFL logic, you state, "you are suggesting that teams will run on them and so they don't have to pass on them. but if you looked at their secondary, you'd see another reason why you'd want to run instead of pass". So teams were so afraid to pass on this team, they ran...and ran...and ran...and ***** - they didn't stop! Why, if you guys could have played them every week, that running back you have could have rushed for 3,000, and you QB could play till he was 50!
Let's take a closer look at that alleged "powerhouse" you guys are bragging about.
In looking at strength of schedule, I see that against approximate .500 teams (that includes 9-7s and 7-9s), 11 of your 16 opponents fit into this category (4 teams at 8-8, 2 teams at 7-9, 5 teams at 9-7). Further, you played the redoubtable Oakland Raiders (2-14) twice, a 5-11 Arizona team (that shredded you for 356 yards in the air) once, and a 4-12 Cleveland team once.
You faced 6 teams with winning records, but only one with double-digit wins (Baltimore, at 13-3, who, incidentally, beat you!).
Your opponents win percentage was .457.
Not bad.
The Pats break down like this: 7 of their 16 opponents were in the approximate .500 category (4 teams at 8-8, 2 teams at 7-9, 1 team at 9-7). While we did face 4 teams with a 6-10 record (going 3-1), we faced 5 teams with winning records (2-3), 4 of these were of the double digit variety (2-2). We faced only one true stink team, Detroit at 3-13.
Our opponents win percentage was .496.
So here's my point....you guys have looked spectacular against a plethora of .500 teams. The one team of any repute (and any reputable defense), on your schedule beat you.
Now, you have beat the people the schedule maker puts in front of you, yes, and you have done that quite well. It's just that we have, too - and it appears we've done it a little better against a better quality schedule.
So, to quote your Marty Schottenheimer before last year's game, I like our chances.
I like them very much....