I guess you didn't read the sack stats. Brady was sacked 21 times the year before he went down, then Cassel came in and was sacked 47 times. This year Brady has been sacked 15 times. Cassel has made the o line look worse than it is.

I'm not as worried about him missing on that throw. What worries me is that this came during a half where it seemed pretty clear to me that Cassel gave up on his team.

He had some inaccuracy issues in New England. And he's had some all season. But in the first game against San Diego and the against Denver, Cassel looked like he didn't want to play.

I still think Cassel's capable of a lot more. And it's ****ing frustrating that the Chiefs decided that he didn't need a QBs coach this season. But at this point, you have to bring in a new QB next season to compete for a starting job.

Cassel has done nothing to merit the 2nd round pick and there isn't really any evidence he ever will. Cassel is not accurate and has a weak arm. What is there to like about his play?

Really, so McDaniels gets no credit for their offense... interesting.

Ok, so you're still wanting to compare Cassel to Rodgers...

When I look at the 2009 Chiefs, I don't see anything that looks like a Greg Jennings, Donald Driver or Ryan Grant... players that Rodgers had in 2008 and now in 2009. Don't forget that this season, they also made the 3-4 switch and have improved defensively.

The Patriots lost Josh McDaniels. If he was still there they would have won at least three more games. A lot of people are questioning the playcalling there since McDaniels left.

this

Brady already has stats comparable to those Cassel put up last year and he has four more games to play!
3693 21/11 <---MC 08 ne
3638 22/10 <---tom so far 09

Cassel needs to grow by leaps and bounds and he isnt getting the personal attention that a qb coach would afford to help him learn from mistakes.

I still have hope, but it is dwindling...

you're on fuggin crack son!!!

This was my fear when all the "trade talk" started and involved Cassel and Denver... I wasn't buying into it simply because his one year of greatness was with an offense that had Moss, Welker, etc.

There is a reason the guy was a backup for so long... I still think he has talent and that KC needs to upgrade the quality around him, but when I saw the contract he received... wow, that's a lot for a guy that has only one year of work (including college).

Enh, they're issues are not all on offense... they have taken a dip in the rankings defensively the last 2 seasons. I think it's kinda crazy to suggest they would have 10 wins if Josh were still there.

I think they would have beaten Denver, Miami, and Indy with McDaniels.

Nobody will ever know...

no, no you dont! liar!

j/k

but man, put the bottle of whiskey down, its too early son!

I love this.

They also would have beaten the Jets if they had Josh McDaniels :)

So Josh McDaniels would have played defense too?

You are honestly the worst type of homer, the one who has no logic, who talks out of their ass every post, and someone who everyone should typically want to smash in the face.

Obviously I am just giving my opinion and there is no way to know. All I know is Belicheat has been getting criticized for the playcalling.

When Belicheat goes for it on 4th down they are stopped short. When McDaniels goes for it on 4th down well... This happens.

http://i47.tinypic.com/15x982c.jpg

Statistically, the defense isn't that bad.

Of course, statistics are lying in this case. The defense is highly mediocre.

But the offense ain't so great either. Awful in the red zone, awful in the last 2 minutes of each half, awful in the 2nd half in general, and seemingly unable to get it done under pressure.

Brady has thrown two picks in the red zone in the last 4 weeks (after going something like 300 attempts in a row in the red zone without throwing one).

The Patriots have beaten ZERO teams iwth a winning record this year, and are 7-5 depsite a realtivelyweak schedule. The team just isn't that good. It appears to be a transition year, though we still have Brady/Moss/Welker.

So, how's that working out for you? Convince everybody yet?

You know, there are times when you really go over the top... you act as if McD is the greatest out there. If he were... they would not have lost to the Redskins.

NE is 50% on 4th down this year, going 8 for 16.
DEN is 33% on 4th down this year, going 4 for 12.

I really haven't paid much attention to NE's schedule but there were some on here claiming NE's record this year was worse than last because of their much tougher schedule.

Interesting.

Let's see, the Patriots are 7-5...

Defeated:
Bills (4-8)
Falcons (6-6)
Ravens (6-6)
Titans (5-7)
Bucs (1-11)
Dolphins (6-6)
Jets (6-6)

Lost to:
Jets (6-6)
Broncos (8-4)
Colts (12-0)
Saints (12-0)
Dolphins (6-6)

So, through 12 games... they've played 3 teams with records better than .500 and lost all 3. They have split with the Dolpins and Jets, both 6-6. And, they smacked around the Bills (by 1 point), Titans and Bucs.

I never looked at it like that, but yeah... they've been very underwhelming and yet, they're still leading the AFCE by a game. They're fortunate in that regard.

<<>>

Just for giggles and grins...

Denver has defeated:
Bengals (9-3)
Browns (1-11)
Raiders (4-8)
Cowboys (8-4)
Patriots (7-5)
Chargers (9-3)
Giants (7-5)
Chiefs (3-9)

Denver has lost to:
Ravens (6-6)
Steelers (6-6)
Redskins (3-9)
Chargers (9-3)

Their schedule is tougher.

2009: Opponents have a .516 winning percentage

2008: Opponents had a .480 winning percentage

Stats are great... the 2009 numbers are skewed a bit by the two 12-0 teams on their schedule. NE has only played 3 teams with a record OVER .500 at this point. Denver has had 6 games comparatively.

AFCE is currently a mediocre conference. Has been ever since the Dolphins and Jets lost their burst around 2004'ish.

When the Patriots were winning SBs earlier this decade, both those teams were perennial playoff contenders.

One year the Pats won the SB ('04?) the Pats went 10-0 against teams with 10 or more wins. That is an absurd statistic. Absolutely incredible.

This year, they just don't have the killer instinct, confidence, guts, whatever you want to call it.

They went something like 66-1 over a 6 year period when leading at either halftime or the third quarter -- can't remember which. This year we're lost about 3 games that way.

This aren't your teenager's Patriots at the moment....

Yeah, they've hit a bump in the road... it happens to most teams. I think many expected it to happen to Indy this year as well, but they great Peyton is showing they can win with the likes of Garcon and Collie playing big roles. It's incredible really.

Yeah, the old adage of lies, damn lies and statistics is coming into play here.

Colts/Saints screw up the curve.

Tits were 0-6 or whatever when we played them, then they switched QBs and became a real NFL team.

Other htan the Colts/Saints, not a single team that we've played this year has a winning record at the moment. That's a whole bunch of average.

Their defense is much better than it was under Dungy also. They quit all that cover 2 crap.

Sure, but when you see the repeated comebacks that you've seen lately and that freaking win vs Miami when he had the ball for fewer than a quarter... sheesh, that's all Manning.

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

I don't give a shit about Denver. They have nothing to do with this:

You know that "stats" can be deceiving right? Here you go.

2008

NE played KC and Stl which both had 2 wins. That drives the avg down. How many times do you get to play 2 teams with 2 wins from outside your division? That would make for a super easy season but their next lowest win % for an opponent was 7-9.

Worst record in their division was Buffalo at 7-9. Worst team they played besides Buffalo (and the above mentioned KC and Stl) was Denver who finished 8-8. They played 2 horrible teams a 7-9 team 2x (buffalo) and everybody else was .500 or better.

They played Indy, Pitt, and SD as well.

Go look at their schedule and who they actually played and then look at this years and how it's shaping up and tell me its much harder this year.

All 3 division rivals are behind on winning % from last year and may not finish at .500. No doubt Miami is not going 11-5 this year, The Jets likely aren't going 9-7 and Buffalo is not going to go 7-9.

They have played Tampa and Atlanta and they played Tenn in the first half of the year before the turn around.

Not a tougher schedule regardless of what the % says.

Well the point it still valid. Your wrong about the strength of schedule between this year and last.

Did you play those teams, or not?

Winning percentage doesn't lie.

If you want to talk about curves, let's talk about how much tougher this year's schedule is statistically, while you're facing 3 green QB's inside the division.

2009 Division winning percentage: .444

2008 Division winning percentage: .562

You faced 3 teams last year with less than 5 wins.

This year, you're already guaranteed to face no more than one: Tampa.

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

We are 41 / 171 on 3rd down conversions. the QB gets paid to make 3rd down conversions. Matt has 349 attempt with 188 completions & a qb raiting 72.3 but the team sucks around him so its not his fault. this kind of reminds me of the Huard lovers it was never his fault.

Are you ****ing blind?

.516 > .480

The Colts-Saints "curve" is a bunch of bullshit.

That's like saying that facing KC, STL and SEA last year blows the curve for the 2008 record.

The Patriots have played better teams this year, period, and the stats bear that out - and that's with the division getting weaker.

ROFL @ "drives the average down..."

NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.

The winning percentage is down last year because THEY DIDN'T PLAY AS TOUGH OF A SCHEDULE.

Honestly you are the blind dumbass on this one. 2 teams driving the number down, the other 14 games were tougher on avg.

This year 2 12-0 teams drive the avg up. 2 tough games the other 14 easier.

Would you rather have 2 easy games and 14 tougher ones or 2 tough ones and 14 easier ones? I think you know the answer to that.

You talk as if you should be smart enough to understand this. Sorry I misjudged you.

Actually look at the ****ing schedule this year and last and how it played out rather than looking up your % and acting like it is empirical proof.

What makes the 5 win mark so special? I'm just curious... I view it as under .500, at .500 or over .500.

NE was 11-5 in 2008...

At the end of 16 games...
- they had played 7 games against teams that finished over .500 (MIA x2, NYJ x2, IND, PIT, AZ)
- they had played 2 games against teams @ .500 (SD and DEN)
- they had played 7 games against teams < .500 (KC , SF, STL, BUF x2, SEA, OAK)

So, 9 of their 16 games were against teams at or below .500.

In 2008, the Patriots had 7 wins against the less than .500 teams, 1 win against the .500 teams and won 3 of 7 against the teams over .500 ... so, 8 of their 11 wins were against the poor teams.

So, through 12 games in 2009, the Patriots have only played three games against teams with a record better than .500. In all of 2008, they had played in 7 of those games.

The four remaining games for NE... CAR, BUF, JAX, HOU ... only 1 of those three teams is over .500.

So, at this pace... they'll end 2009 with a mere 4 games against teams that finished the season better than .500 compared to last year when they had 7 of those games.

Plus, just within the AFCE in 2008... it was incredibly more difficult than it has been so far.

Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

I still can't believe how much of a ****ing moron you really are.

Go back and read the actual posts you arrogant asshat. The point is ****ing valid and if you cant understand it your not as bright as you make yourself out to be.

I know how it played out.

.516 > .480

When the NFL decides to change the way winning percentage is looked at, and declares that it matters what a team's record is when you face them, let me know.

Otherwise, you're pissing in the wind here. I'm sure you're used to it.

Nothing in particular, other than seeing that NE played 4 cupcakes last year, and have only played one this year.

I wonder why the opponent's winning percentage is higher this year...

I always love the "well, this is skewing the numbers" argument.

Playing two 2-14 teams drives the winning percentage down. If you take those out....

But you can't. They played those teams.

Just like you ****ing boneheads that say, "well, we looked really good against the run today."

What? We gave up 250 yards rushing?

"Yeah, but if you take out the 3 big runs, we did really well."

I don't expect you to understand really I don't. You are blind to anything outside of what you want to believe or have previously stated regardless of the facts.

x2 for Hamas.

JFC you are stubborn.

Once again would you rather play 2 hard games and 14 easier ones or 2 easy ones and 14 harder ones?

Answer that question and you have the answer to this whole ****ing subject. It's not that hard to understand.

Really?

I have facts and stats to back up my claims.

You have, "well, if you take this, this and this out, you'll see my point."

Ok, so you're more than happy to point to the cupcakes as the reason for you saying last year's schedule was easier than 2009.

Why is it so bad to suggest that the ONLY reason the % is higher so far in 2009 is because you have two 12-0 teams in the mix?

I'm not removing any teams from either scenario... you point to 4 'cupcakes' in 2008 and dismiss the notion that the two undefeated teams might actually 'inflate' the 2009 %. What you're doing makes no sense.

We're in the middle of a "stats debate" and your numbers are no better than mine... if you were to create a poll, I'll bet you that more people pick my side than yours in this one.

Stubborn?

I'm not the jackass that thinks playing one cupcake, (Tampa) a division rival who's 4-8 and 14 teams who are are playing competitive football (including 2 undefeated teams) is easier than playing 4 cupcakes, and 12 teams that were competitive - none of which were undefeated.

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)


Top third teams: Even

Middle third teams: More in 2009

Bottom third teams: More in 2008

So, in your world, I guess this means that playing better teams some how means an easier schedule.

Are you suggesting that they didn't play those undefeated teams?

Or that *gasp* undefeated teams don't present more of a challenge than say teams with 3 or 4 losses?

Nothing "skews" the numbers. You play who you play.

This year, NE has played better teams. Period. And the numbers bear this out.

The ignore list is your friend. He is kind of like having a little piece of gravel in your sock.

I am not sure where you would have read that I suggested any teams from either year don't count.

The bold part in your post is what I am contesting with you.

In 2008, the Patriots had 7 games against teams that finished BETTER than .500 overall.

So far in 2009, the Patriots have played 3 games against teams that have a record BETTER than .500 overall and only 1 of their remaining 4 games has a team with a record better than .500.

Last year, within he AFCE... NY and MIA were playing much better than they are in 2009, so the AFCE is down in 2009 compared to 2008.

I think you're going to have a hard time disputing what I provided in post #118.

I did find this funny though...

NE lost 17-20 and Denver (now 8-4)
NE lost 34-35 at Indy (12-0)

So, they doubled their score and only lost by 1 at Indy... compared to what they did against the Broncos. I noticed that after I looked at your comment again.

Why is .500 the benchmark?

Oh, that's right. Because it fits your argument.

But only for the time being, because there are 4 more weeks of the season left.

In 4 weeks, there could be as many as 11 teams NE has faced this year at .500 or better.

The mere fact that NE has faced 11 teams that very likely will end up .500 or better speaks volumes about the schedule difficulty this year.

Hell, even if you throw the 7-9 teams in from last year, that's only 9 teams .500 or better.

But this comes down to one simple thing:

To you, winning percentage apparently means nothing.

To me, and the NFL, it's pretty important.

ROFL

Look, it's lame at this point to project the potential winning percentages. All we can do is compare what we know through 16 games of 2008 and 12 games of 2009.

Of course winning percentage is important... and you never answered why the 5 win mark was so precious to you a few posts back.

You really have to ask why the .500 barrier is important?

Look, if you can't tell the difference in the number of games played against better teams from 2008 to 2009... I can't help you.

There are 4 games left and anything can happen, but at this point... I think it's silly to definitively say that without question, the 2009 season is harder for NE compared to 2008.

The facts do not support you... that theory (despite your many attempts) cannot be proven.

The AFCE is performing worse now than it was a year ago (they play 6 games against those teams, so it would lead one to believe that the quality of 'strength' has diminished in a year).

We'll see how the last 4 games play out... I'm sure the Bills, Panthers and Texans will do a lot to help the winning percentage for ya.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Huard was never this inaccurate.

Very true... I'm just bored. ;)

There are just so many ways to split it up and since 75% of the 32 teams reach that 6 win mark every season, this is why I focus more on the # of teams played that have records BETTER than .500 when trying to figure out the real strength of schedule.

There's no doubt that the division is weaker this year.

Which makes only makes my point, and the overall numbers, stronger.

What I'm saying is that people ASSUME the overall schedule is weaker ONLY because the division is weaker. There are still 10 other opponents.

They ignore the other 10 opponents, which in this case are ridiculously stronger (.558) than they were in 2008. (.431)

Hell, the Pats opponents outside the division already have 2 fewer wins (67) than the 2008 opponents had through an entire 16 week schedule. (69)

ROFL True or not, that statement tickles my funny bone on many levels.:evil:

The real strength of schedule is total wins/total games.

Seems that you and Marcellus are the only folks unwilling to accept that.

We'll just never agree on this one...

Outside of the division for 2009, at this point they have played 3 teams with a record over .500 and one remaining. Last year, outside the division they faced 3 teams with a record over .500 outside the division.

5 non-divisional teams had records under .500 in 2008 and this year, the number is at 4 teams... and with Baltimore and ATL at 6-6, they could fall under when it's all said and done.

We're splitting hairs... there are two reasons why the math is helping your argument... Indy and the Saints. We'll see how the season winds up and whether or not your math will stay to form.

But, I do like to look at more than just the numbers... stats can lie.

That's just too simplistic... you act as if it's just impossible for the Colts and Saints' records to inflate that %. That's fine... overall, the quality of teams from 2008 presented a more difficult challenge than in 2009 so far.

Again, it's as easy as this for me... through 12 games in 2009, the Patriots have only played three games against teams with a record better than .500. In all of 2008, they had played in 7 games against teams with records better than .500.

wasn't trying to be funny :D it's more sad than anything :deevee:

No, I haven't. As a matter of fact:


I tried to help your argument by taking out the bottom feeders each year and focusing on the others. That didn't work. .606 > .572

I tried to help your argument by taking out the top teams, since you think that the Colts and Saints have skewed the numbers. That didn't work. .429 > .423

And this whole premise of "skewing" the numbers is ridiculous.

Nothing gets skewed. They play who they play.

I'm not the one saying anything is skewed. I've broken it down to remove any possible bias. You say the Colts and Saints are skewing the numbers?

I removed them, and the numbers are still on my side.

They played too many bottom feeders last year?

I removed them, and the numbers are still on my side.

Because Tony G would win jump balls with 2 defenders on his back.