ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Brady has lost 5 with the same players Matt had...

Page 10 of 13

« First

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Brady has lost 5 with the same players Matt had... (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=219590)

Mile High Mania

12-10-2009 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6334237)

Fact:

.516 > .480

Keep ignoring it, or making excuses for it.

I'm not ignoring anything... I just think this is one of the 'stats' that is a bit less meaningful than others.

Excuses... you were the one talking about "4 cupcakes" in 2008 right?

Again, if you were to put our two scenarios up in a poll... more people would choose my version of this tale than your version. Overall winning % (strength of schedule) comparisons is just a very 'loose' stat to use. If you can't see that, there's nothing I can do to help you.

OnTheWarpath15

12-10-2009 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 6334256)

It's such a loose stat that the NFL uses it for tiebreakers, and to determine draft order.

It's not meaningful to you because it invalidates your argument.

And regarding the cupcakes, I think that gets explained quite well in post 128.

Playing weak teams makes for a weaker schedule.

The Pats played more weak teams in 2008, and have played more 6 to 10 win teams in 2009, while playing the same number of 11+ win teams.

You're making it out as if NE has played a bunch of scrubs other than Indy and New Orleans, when actually, they've played nothing but teams that will end up in that 6-10 win range, with the exception of Tampa. (and maybe Buffalo)

Mile High Mania

12-10-2009 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6334290)

It's such a loose stat that the NFL uses it for tiebreakers, and to determine draft order.

It's not meaningful to you because it invalidates your argument.

And regarding the cupcakes, I think that gets explained quite well in post 128.

Playing weak teams makes for a weaker schedule.

The Pats played more weak teams in 2008, and have played more 6 to 10 win teams in 2009, while playing the same number of 11+ win teams.

You're making it out as if NE has played a bunch of scrubs other than Indy and New Orleans, when actually, they've played nothing but teams that will end up in that 6-10 win range, with the exception of Tampa. (and maybe Buffalo)

In 2008, of 32 NFL teams... only 8 teams failed to hit 6 wins.
In 2007, of 32 NFL teams... only 8 teams failed to hit 6 wins.
In 2006, of 32 NFL teams... only 6 teams failed to hit 6 wins.

75% or more of the teams in the NFL finish with 6 wins every year... what's so special about the 6 win mark? At least you've moved it up from 5.

And, regarding the scrubs... yes, compared to the teams with winning records that they played in 2008... they are playing a bunch of teams that have failed to do better than .500.

I realize as a Chiefs' fan you see .500 as a great achievement (sorry, the window was open and I took a cheap shot), but .500 really isn't special.

OnTheWarpath15

12-10-2009 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 6334322)

And last year, NE played 4 of those 8 teams.

This year, they'll play 1, possibly 2.

Add that to the fact that they've played more teams in that 6-10 win range, and you have this:

.516 > .480

You want to take out the 4 teams under 6 wins from last year? That should help your argument. I mean, those bad teams are making it look like you played a soft schedule.

Done. .572 in 2008

To be fair, we have to take out the 4 worst records of 2009.

Damn. .606 in 2009

Let's try to help you again.

Since they faced 3 teams with 10 wins or more last year, and will again this year, let's take out and see what happnes, since those pesky undefeated teams are skewing the stats.

2008: .423 in 2008

Damn. .429 in 2009

Conclusion:

The 2009 Patriots are playing better top end teams, and better bottom end teams.

Thus, the schedule is harder this year than last.

.516 > .480

Mile High Mania

12-10-2009 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6334385)

And last year, NE played 4 of those 8 teams.

This year, they'll play 1, possibly 2.

Add that to the fact that they've played more teams in that 6-10 win range, and you have this:

.516 > .480

You want to take out the 4 teams under 6 wins from last year? That should help your argument. I mean, those bad teams are making it look like you played a soft schedule.

Done. .572 in 2008

To be fair, we have to take out the 4 worst records of 2009.

Damn. .606 in 2009

Let's try to help you again.

Since they faced 3 teams with 10 wins or more last year, and will again this year, let's take out and see what happnes, since those pesky undefeated teams are skewing the stats.

2008: .423

Damn. 2009: .429

Conclusion:

The 2009 Patriots are playing better top end teams, and better bottom end teams.

Thus, the schedule is harder this year than last.

.516 > .480

We'll see how the final month of games shape up... we can both use the numbers any way we like. It's a fun debate.

Sweet Daddy Hate

12-10-2009 01:09 PM

Let's just put this where it belongs, and save ourselves a bigger headache:

Cassel sucks. He ****ing sucks. Not compared to any other QB who doesn't play for our team or who I wanted drafted, because that doesn't matter anymore.

Cassel, meet suck. Suck, meet Cassel. There we go, just like a Reeses peanut butter cup; two great tastes that taste great together!

Suck, suck, suck, suck, Suckity-Suckity suck-suck-suck!

ChiefsCountry

12-10-2009 01:11 PM

Wait till January that is when Brady becomes dangerous. I wouldn't want to be playing them in the playoffs.

Amnorix

12-10-2009 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 6333840)

You got to love some guys are comparing a FHOFer who is Brady to a game manager in Cassel

I'm not keen to compare Cassell to Brady either, but i note that Brady was often referred to as "just a game manager" until he started getting some real weapons at WR.

Amnorix

12-10-2009 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6333878)

There is NOTHING that can back up the claim that last year's schedule was harder than this years.

Suffice to say both schedules were fairly soft, really. It's not really a debate worth having, to be honest.

Marcellus

12-10-2009 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6334113)

You can break it down however you want.

Last year, they played 3 teams that won more than 10 games.

This year, they'll play 3 teams than won more than 10 games, unless Denver loses 3 of their last 4.

Last year, they played 6 teams that were within 2 games either side of .500 (6-10 to 10-6)

This year, it's difficult to predict, because there are still 4 weeks to go. Even conservatively, you would expect the following teams to fall between 6 and 10 wins:

Miami, Jets, Atlanta, Baltimore and Jacksonville are already there. (5)

Tennessee, Carolina and Houston are one win away. (3)

Buffalo would have to go .500 to get there.

Realistically, that's 8 teams that fall in the 6-10 win range, compared to 6 in 2008.

Then, there's the bottom of the barrel teams. 5 wins or less.

2008: STL, KC, Seattle and Oakland. (4)

2009: Tampa. Outside chance that Buffalo loses 3 of their last 4. (2, at max)

2 major flaws in this. You are not taking into account that division rivals are played 2x. You keep using the term teams with x record. It should be games against teams with x record. Immediately that puts them playing 4 games against teams last year with better than 11 wins not 3 with better than 10. In fact it is 2 games against 11 wins (Miami) and 2 against 12 wins (Indy and Pitt)

That by itself makes last years schedule tougher using your top and bottom tier logic.

Then you want to say teams with 6-10 wins are equal in this analysis. BMFS. You cannot tell me a 6 win team is equal to a 10 win team so using that as your cut off line is ****ing reeruned.

Marcellus

12-10-2009 01:29 PM

All that being said, Cassel is playing with fewer play makers but he is not helping himself at all.

NE would be worse off with Cassel right now (duh) so that kind of blows up the original point of this thread.

Tribal Warfare

12-10-2009 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 6334431)

I'm not keen to compare Cassell to Brady either, but i note that Brady was often referred to as "just a game manager" until he started getting some real weapons at WR.

I never heard that I've always heard the citations that he's the "Golden QB" during the playoffs because he can take the team on his back in the playoffs to the SB.

OnTheWarpath15

12-10-2009 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 6334435)

Suffice to say both schedules were fairly soft, really. It's not really a debate worth having, to be honest.

I think people see the downturn in the division and assume that makes for an easier schedule.

Rasputin

12-10-2009 01:46 PM

I'd compare Cassel to Huard more than any body. Both came in to relieve their injured QB and saved the season from disaster. Then oh my he could be the savior for our team and every body is happy and ruiten for him saying he could do no wrong. But reality strikes and he sucks cuz he was a career back up for NEW ENGLAND and not a starting QB to begin with but they both had beaten teams so yea lets go with them no matter how much they suck week to week off target game managers.

Mile High Mania

12-10-2009 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6334498)

I think people see the downturn in the division and assume that makes for an easier schedule.

Well... ummm, if you look at the Winning % of those AFCE teams (MIA and NYJ) in 2008 compared to 2009.... would that not support the claim?

Miami won 11 games and the Jets won 9 games in 2008.
Right now, with 4 games left... both teams are 6-6. So, Miami cannot reach that 11 win mark (lower winning %) and the Jets have to win 3 of 4 against the Bucs, Falcons, Colts and Bengals to match 9 wins.

So, if you're going to stand up and wave the "winning %" card... how can you support that 2009 is tougher within the AFCE than 2008?

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Page 10 of 13

« First

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page