So the Pats are not as good as last year?

[CaptainHook]

The schedule they had this year had a lot to do with those numbers.

Miami twice, Arizona, San Francisco, Cleveland.  Easily the 4 worst teams in the league.

 

649777[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

That's a cop out, Capt.

 

They played more playoff teams this year than last year, and the records of the teams they faced are virtually identical in 2003/2004.

 

649780[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

But DMD agrees with me

 

Okay, I'll play.

 

The Patriots overall numbers from 2004 were, of course, influenced by their schedule. Consider that they played out their year against SF (2-14), NYJ (10-6), MIA (4-12), CIN (8-8), CLE (4-12), BAL (9-7), KC (7-9) and BUF (9-7). In their last eight games, they had three winning records to face and two of them were inter-divisional. That means they went against teams that ended up 53-75 this season. Over the course of the final eight games last year, they faced opponents that went 65-64 over the final eight weeks. So, easier schedule in 2004 though they lost one more game in that time span. 

 

Against a softer schedule this year, they allowed 1795 passing yards and 10 TDs. In 2003, they only allowed 1574 passing yards and 8 scores and that was skewed because Manning had 4 scores against them. Otherwise, they only allowed 4 passing scores to 7 of their final 8 opponents. They allowed only three of those teams to throw even one score. In 2004, they allowed every one of their final 8 opponents to throw for a passing touchdown except for BAL (who doesn't much anyway).

 

In 2004, for the final eight games, they were great against inter-divisional opponents of BUF and NYJ. They were pretty good against the soft teams of SF (189-1), MIA (198-1), BAL (93-0). But consider what the secondary has allowed when facing a team that could actually throw well in the last half of the season - CIN (328-3) and KC (377-2). Over the last eight games of 2003, they had 17 interceptions but in 2004, they only had 12 despite facing heavy weights of Ken Dorsey (1), Feeley (0), Luke McCown (2) and Boller (1). Five of the 14 interceptions this season came against Bledsoe and Pennington. There is no argument that they can gameplan against divisional foes. Outside their division, they have gotten worse in every measure in the passing game.

 

The NE offense has improved - no doubt. They have a running game now and that helps tremendously and Brady is throwing every bit as well as last season. But the defense is definitely worse in the passing game and Manning always had good statistical games against the Pats even when they had CB's  - they no longer have pro-bowlers there. They have a rookie and a second year player unlike the first time this year when the Colts almost beat them.

 

NE has struggled through a relatively light schedule to end their season. Their defense has become worse over the last half of the year and now has to face the Colts who are easily the best offense in the league right now. It will be interesting since there is no questioning that NE has the best coaching strategy in almost every game they play. They just have lesser players and a lesser overall defense.

 

649859[/snapback]

 

 

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I thought you went to all the games?  I will enjoy an adult refreshment in Section 122 in your honor. 

 

649858[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well you see...

 

In the past I have gone to minimum 5 games a season, say for the last 6 years. I get some of the tix through my buddy that has season tickets. We had been splitting the tix for several years. The rest of the tickets I get through friends and contacts.

 

Well, wouldn't you know that as soon as he got engaged the wife to be laid claim to the other ticket and I was left standing in the cold for the season. I am not happy about this!!

 

 

But, if I go I'll know to check 122

[Caveman_Nick]

Okay, I'll play.

 

The Patriots overall numbers from 2004 were, of course, influenced by their schedule. Consider that they played out their year against SF (2-14), NYJ (10-6), MIA (4-12), CIN (8-8), CLE (4-12), BAL (9-7), KC (7-9) and BUF (9-7). In their last eight games, they had three winning records to face and two of them were inter-divisional. That means they went against teams that ended up 53-75 this season. Over the course of the final eight games last year, they faced opponents that went 65-64 over the final eight weeks. So, easier schedule in 2004 though they lost one more game in that time span. 

649859[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So I imagine that it doesn't matter to you in doing schedule analysis that the Colts played 8 (yes 8) teams with losing records vs. NE's 6? True, the schedule winning percentage is a few points higher, but that's because Tennessee was 5-11 vs Miami's 4-12, and SF was 2-14 vs Chicago's 5-11. Not a big deal IMHO.

 

I guess my point is that analysis like this can be spun any way you like if you're a talented spinner. And none of it means anything come Sunday. I am ready for some Football!!!!!

[Hugh 0ne]

I guess my point is that analysis like this can be spun any way you like if you're a talented spinner.  And none of it means anything come Sunday.  I am ready for some Football!!!!!

649956[/snapback]

 

 

Then what the fudge would we talk about all week?

[Caveman_Nick]

 

Then what the fudge would we talk about all week?

649970[/snapback]

 

That the Red Sox are Great? That Chris Brown is a Sally? Your thang for Corey Dillon?

[masslefty33]

And another thing. The Pats are MUCH MUCH MUCH better in the Red Zone this year. I say this since in last years AFC Championship game, the Pats had to settle for 5 FGs from Vinitieri. Otherwise that game was over early and the colts fans would have driving back home in their RV by the time halftime rolled around. With this years offense, it could be very scary the amount of points the Pats will put up. The colts will score, but the pats will score more, and run out the clock.

 

Lets just play the *** game now

[Menudo]

These teams are probably the 2 best teams in football, sorry Menudo, but it's true. They match up very well, so as costly as turnovers always are, they will cost double in this game.

649821[/snapback]

 

Give me a logical explanation, other than "It's my opinion" on how these are the 2 best teams in football. The Steelers were 15-1, please give them their respect. They hammered the Patriots and Eagles in back to back weeks ending both of those team's winning streaks. They have a 14 game winning streak. They are # 1 in almost every power ranking. They are the first AFC team to ever win 15 games and only the 4th ever in the NFL. By no means do I think they are a lock to win the AFC, the NFL, or even their game this week against the Jets, but calling the Colts and the Patriots the 2 best teams in football is a ridiculous statement. Sorry, you knew I couldn't let that one slide.

[Patsfan04]

DMD did too much analysis to digest, but the same can be done for the Colts.

 

Colts opponents had a combined record of 128-128.

The combined records of teams the Colts beat was 88-104.

The combined records of teams the Colts lost to was 40-24.

 

The Colts were 4-3 against teams above .500

The Colts were 8-1 against teams at or below .500

 

The Colts were 3-2 against playoff teams.

The Pats were 4-1 against playoff teams.

 

Edited to add one more thing, DMD mentions how great the Pats gameplan against division foes. The Pats and Colts have played so much that they basically are division foes. Twice last year, second meeting this year, and were the same division before reallignment.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Patsfan04

[WaterMan]

I see it as the Colts D versus the Pats O. If Manning can't score 5-6 TDs in this game, do you think the Colts D will really be able to win this game for them? The last I checked, both teams have to play on offense and defense. It's not the Colts O vs the Pats D the entire game.

[CaptainHook]

The combined records of teams the Colts lost to was 40-24.

 

The Colts were 4-3 against teams above .500

 

The Colts were 3-2 against playoff teams.

 

649995[/snapback]

I think the fact the Colts "gave" Denver the last game of the year skews those stats. At least the Colts didn't lose to a 4-12 team.

 

The Colts were 4-3 against teams above .500

649995[/snapback]

Take away the last Denver game, which shouldn't count, and add the fact they just beat Denver, the Colts are actually 6-2 against .500 teams. (The other +.500 team is now the Vikings, since they are 9-8.)

 

The Colts were 3-2 against playoff teams.

The Pats were 4-1 against playoff teams.

649995[/snapback]

Once again, take out the give-away game, and add the win over Denver, the Colts are 4-1 against play-off teams.

 

The combined records of teams the Colts lost to was 40-24.

649995[/snapback]

The combined reocrds of teamss the Pats lost to was 19-13.

Edited January 11, 2005 by CaptainHook

[Patsfan04]

Actually, the Colts opponents were 121-119.  The Patriots opponents were 126-130.

 

I think the fact the Colts "gave" Denver the last game of the year skews those stats.  At least the Colts didn't lose to a 4-12 team.

Take away the last Denver game, which shouldn't count, and add the fact they just beat Denver, the Colts are actually 6-2 against .500 teams.

650005[/snapback]

 

The 121-119 to 126-130 stat doesn't add up, did the Patriots play teams that played more games than Indy opponents.

 

You can't just chalk up a win @ Denver in the last week of the year. Who knows how it would have come out, but it was a loss.

[CaptainHook]

Oops! I mis-calculated. My bad!

 

And I wasn't giving a win to the Colts. I was just throwing the game out of the equation, since they played their second and third stringers.

Edited January 11, 2005 by CaptainHook

[gilthorp]

But DMD agrees with me

 

649896[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I see that. I guess if the season only counted for the last games of the year, the analysis is spot on.

 

As it has been stated, you can spin stats in any direction.

 

A team that had a better overall record, with a more balanced offense, against virtually the same types of teams (as evidenced in the opponent's records YTD for both 2003 and 2004) tells me the 2004 version is a better overall team.

 

This doesn't mean they will win this weekend, nor does it mean they will lose.

 

I predict the Colts will fail once again to get past New England, but it will be close.

[Bill Swerski]

Not only are the Patriots better this year in my opinion, I have facts to back it up.

 

Pats 2003  (21.7PF vs 14.8PA)                      Pats 2004 (27.1pf vs 16.25 pa)

1 more 1st down than opponents              54 more 1st downs than opponents

Outscored opponents by 110                    Outscored opponents by 177

3.4 yards per carry                                  4.1 yard per carry

41 sacks for and 32 allowed                      45 sacks for and 26 allowed

Brady 85.9 QB Rating                                Brady 92.6 QB Rating

A. Smith 642 yards rushing                        C. Dillon 1635 yard rushing

5039 yards for 4666 yards against              5722 yards for 4972 yards against

What am I missing when you say that the Pats are not as good as last year?

 

649593[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You are not accounting for the fact that most of their starting secondary is gone for the season and that their backups got schooled by A.J. Feeley.

 

I do agree that the Pats offense is significantly better than last year. Having Dillon makes a big difference.

[Patsfan04]

You are not accounting for the fact that most of their starting secondary is gone for the season and that their backups got schooled by A.J. Feeley.

 

650276[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If the Pats had beat the Dolphins, they would have been 6-0 vs their division.

How many teams go 6-0 vs their division?

 

The AFC East had all 4 teams in the top 10 in defense, I believe.

 

The Colts lost to a very bad KC team, in KC.

How did the Patriots do @ KC?

 

If you look at the Patriots record and Brady's stats @ Miami, it was not surprising they lost.

If you look at the Colts record and Mannings stats @ NE, don't be suprised when they lose.

[CaptainHook]

If the Pats had beat the Dolphins, they would have been 6-0 vs their division.

How many teams go 6-0 vs their division?

 

The AFC East had all 4 teams in the top 10 in defense, I believe.

 

The Colts lost to a very bad KC team, in KC.

How did the Patriots do @ KC?

 

If you look at the Patriots record and Brady's stats @ Miami, it was not surprising they lost.

If you look at the Colts record and Mannings stats @ NE, don't be suprised when they lose.

 

650296[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If the Colts had beat Jacksonville, they would have been 6-0 in their division. So what?

 

The Pats lost to a HORRIBLE Dolphins team in Miami.

The Pats got to play the Chiefs minus Priest Holmes.

 

Manning's stats in the season opener were fine. He threw one pick.

[masslefty33]

You are not accounting for the fact that most of their starting secondary is gone for the season and that their backups got schooled by A.J. Feeley.

 

I do agree that the Pats offense is significantly better than last year.  Having Dillon makes a big difference.

 

650276[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Do you watch football? I am not accounting for the fact that most of their secondary is gone for the season? Hey newsflash, this takes into account the entire season! Law has been gone for about 9 weeks. Poole has been gone for about 12 weeks.

[Bill Swerski]

If the Pats had beat the Dolphins, they would have been 6-0 vs their division.

How many teams go 6-0 vs their division?

 

The AFC East had all 4 teams in the top 10 in defense, I believe.

 

The Colts lost to a very bad KC team, in KC.

How did the Patriots do @ KC?

 

If you look at the Patriots record and Brady's stats @ Miami, it was not surprising they lost.

If you look at the Colts record and Mannings stats @ NE, don't be suprised when they lose.

 

650296[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

(slurp, slurp, slurp)

[Bill Swerski]

Do you watch football? I am not accounting for the fact that most of their secondary is gone for the season? Hey newsflash, this takes into account the entire season! Law has been gone for about 9 weeks. Poole has been gone for about 12 weeks. 

 

650330[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And Pats fans wonder why nobody likes their team.

[Patsfan04]

If the Colts had beat Jacksonville, they would have been 6-0 in their division.  So what?

 

The Pats lost to a HORRIBLE Dolphins team in Miami.

The Pats got to play the Chiefs minus Priest Holmes. 

 

Manning's stats in the season opener were fine.  He threw one pick.

 

650329[/snapback]

 

 

 

Jacksonville was an average team this year, the rest of the AFC South was garbage. Houston and Tennessee were jokes.

The schedule had the AFC South playing the AFC West.

Denver's quick exit and the Jets handling the Chargers shows how weak the AFC West was.

The Jets beating the Chargers also boosted the strength of the AFC East at the same time, IMO.

[CaptainHook]

LOL. A Patriot fan talking about easy schedules. The AFC East was playing the Central. Steelers are the only team worth a crap in that division. And they lost to them. Then, they play the NFC West, by far, the worst division in football.

 

Jacksonville was one game away from making the play-offs. If the Colts had tried against Denver, Jacksonville would have been in. The Colts just happened to have the luxury of deciding who they wanted to play in the play-offs.

Edited January 11, 2005 by CaptainHook

[Menudo]

Oops!  I mis-calculated.  My bad!

 

And I wasn't giving a win to the Colts.  I was just throwing the game out of the equation, since they played their second and third stringers.

 

650027[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The Steelers still won their game against the Bills with 2nd and 3rd stringers....

[Patsfan04]

LOL.  A Patriot fan talking about easy schedules.  The AFC East was playing the Central.  Steelers are the only team worth a crap in that division.  And they lost to them.  Then, they play the NFC West, by far, the worst division in football. 

 

Jacksonville was one game away from making the play-offs.  If the Colts had tried against Denver, Jacksonville would have been in.  The Colts just happened to have the luxury of deciding who they wanted to play in the play-offs.

 

650361[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Alright, I don't have time to do schedule analysis for both teams.

But I know the Patriots were 1-0 vs the Colts this year, and Sundays game is going to be a great battle.

[CaptainHook]

Alright, I don't have time to do schedule analysis for both teams.

But I know the Patriots were 1-0 vs the Colts this year, and Sundays game is going to be a great battle.

 

650401[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This I can agree with.

[Caveman_Nick]

LOL.  A Patriot fan talking about easy schedules.  The AFC East was playing the Central.  Steelers are the only team worth a crap in that division.  And they lost to them.  Then, they play the NFC West, by far, the worst division in football. 

 

650361[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Wow. I don't agree with that.

 

First, the AFC Central was not a weak division. They had the Steelers at 15-1, The Ravens at 9-7, and the Bengals at 8-8. The only pushover team in the division is Cle

 

Then the Pats played the NFC West, with 2 NFC-bound playoff teams, a mediocre Cardinals team (that by all rights could have finished at .500 if they hadn't benched McCown 3 games), and an ultra crappy SF team that somehow managed to pull out 2 OT wins (Keeping the Cards from being .500 in another fashion).

 

Conversely the Colts play in a relatively weak division, being the only playoff team and twice against Tenn and Hou, played the NFC West including the terrible Raiders and the sub-par chiefs, and the NFC North. Is the NFC North a powerhouse compared to the NFC West? After what drugs are smoked? The Bears and the Lions were once again pitiful, Minnesota happily complied with part of their midseason collapse, and GB is absolutely a bunch of pretenders that only made the playoffs because they had the Bears, the Lions, and the Vikes to kick around.

 

Really. If you want to look at the schedules of the teams the reality of the situation is that their schedules were roughly similar, with the Pats playing a couple more quality opponents and top defenses.

 

And still, this will all be meaningless come Sunday.