Chiefs Brady has lost 5 with the same players Matt had... - Page 11

Red Dawg · 12-09-2009, 03:11 PM

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

Hammock Parties · 12-10-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool han Luke

I'd compare Cassel to Huard more than any body.

Huard was never this inaccurate.

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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?

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)

Sweet Daddy Hate · 12-10-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool han Luke

I'd compare Cassel to Huard more than any body.

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

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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.

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

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

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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)

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.

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

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

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.

Rasputin · 12-10-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

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

wasn't trying to be funny

it's more sad than anything

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

That's just too simplistic... you act as if it's just impossible for the Colts and Saints' records to inflate that %.

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

Quote:

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

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.

Chiefnj2 · 12-10-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Huard was never this inaccurate.

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

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-10-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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.

And something else I found comical...

Any reason why you are not considering teams that were/are .500 or better, and not just OVER .500?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the 2008 Pats played 9 games against teams at .500 or better, and the 2009 Pats have played...

10 games against teams .500 or better?

Mojo Jojo · 12-10-2009, 02:42 PM

I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet, but one big difference...
Matt had Josh McDaniels calling plays and as QB coach last year...this season the Pats don't even have an Offensive Coordinator. From what I've seen in Denver this year Josh can make a difference.

Chiefnj2 · 12-10-2009, 02:44 PM

All the drafturbators are mad because their old argument that Cassel took a 16-0 team and could only win 11 games is now being turned against them. Get over it. It was a dumb argument to begin with.

Mecca · 12-10-2009, 02:44 PM

I'm already tired of these ridiculous threads, watching games Cassel in a Chiefs uni looks like shit, that's what matters.

Mile High Mania · 12-10-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And something else I found comical...

Any reason why you are not considering teams that were/are .500 or better, and not just OVER .500?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the 2008 Pats played 9 games against teams at .500 or better, and the 2009 Pats have played...

10 games against teams .500 or better?

I didn't remove the .500 teams for any reason other than to look at the "winning" teams they played. It has nothing to do with supporting my argument.

Early on, I said I view this as below, at or over .500 and I've stuck with that theme during my commentary. You and I view things differently.

I look at teams and their schedules and when trying to determine who had the harder road, I say "Who played the most teams at .500 or below and who played the most over .500?"

The Broncos were .500 last year... did they scare anyone or when you think of them, do you consider them as a "tough" team that was played? The Chargers were also .500 and they went to the playoffs... hard to really judge those .500 and below teams, so I group them together.

When it's all said and done, I think the 2008 schedule will prove to be tougher than 2009 for NE... no matter how you view it.

12-09-2009, 03:11 PM
Red Dawg Going home eventually Join Date: Dec 2002 Casino cash: $1152858	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: 33,179

12-10-2009, 02:42 PM	#162
Mojo Jojo Veteran Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Johnson County Casino cash: $10013802	I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet, but one big difference... Matt had Josh McDaniels calling plays and as QB coach last year...this season the Pats don't even have an Offensive Coordinator. From what I've seen in Denver this year Josh can make a difference.
Posts: 3,341

12-10-2009, 02:44 PM	#163
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $6654388	All the drafturbators are mad because their old argument that Cassel took a 16-0 team and could only win 11 games is now being turned against them. Get over it. It was a dumb argument to begin with. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,541

12-10-2009, 02:44 PM	#164
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-782950	I'm already tired of these ridiculous threads, watching games Cassel in a Chiefs uni looks like shit, that's what matters.
Posts: 115,406