Chiefs Brady has lost 5 with the same players Matt had... - Page 9

Red Dawg · 12-09-2009, 03:11 PM

just saying Matt haters need to get real. The team is awful not Matt.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

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.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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.

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...

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 11:22 AM

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."

Marcellus · 12-10-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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.

Marcellus · 12-10-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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."

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

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.

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."

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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...

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

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.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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.

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.

**HemiEd** · 12-10-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

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.

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

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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.

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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.

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.

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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.

12-09-2009, 03:11 PM
Red Dawg Going home eventually Join Date: Dec 2002 Casino cash: $1142858	Brady has lost 5 with the same players Matt had... just saying Matt haters need to get real. The team is awful not Matt.
Posts: 33,182

12-10-2009, 11:22 AM	#123
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2021115	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."
Posts: 60,758