How much playing time will the starters for the NE Bradys get? (1 Viewer)

[ThunderDragon]

No one plays it closer to the vest than Belichick. I really wish I had a good read on what to expect out of the Patriots for Sunay's game at Houston. I've got both Brady and Moss and don't quite know how much playing time they each will receive. If I don't intend on starting Brady, my backup plan is Alex Smith @ STL. If anyone is in the know or just has a speculative theory, please enlighten me.

 

[David Yudkin]

I posted what I have heard HERE.

 

[ThunderDragon]

If the Pats fight to secure the #3 seed, then they'd face San Diego in the second round of the playoffs, provided they were to advance. #4 seed potentially matriculates them for a rematch against the Colts.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?

why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?

are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

 

[Chase Stuart]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

The odds of #3 facing #4 aren't too high. If you're the Pats, the only way you travel to Cincinnati (assuming you win your playoff games) is if the Bengals beat the Jets on the road Sunday, beat the Ravens/Steelers/Broncos/whoever next week, and then beat the Chargers in San Diego. The odds of that seem pretty low to me -- about a 10% chance. And, of course, it's not as if playing in Cincinnati for the AFCCG as opposed to playing in Foxboro for the AFCCG is going to be decisive as to who wins the game. Maybe the Pats win 65% of the time if its Foxboro, and 35% of the time if its in Cincinnati. So the odds of the Pats getting screwed -- i.e., losing in the AFCCG to Cincinnati in Cincinnati because the game was in Cincinnati -- is about 3%, and that's assuming NE wins all of their games (except week 17, which we're assuming they tank).So does resting your players and avoiding injuries to your key players increase your odds of making it to the Super Bowl by more than 3%? That's up to each team/coach to decide, but I think most would say yes. Having a bye week is really nice, and the 3/4 seeds do not get a bye week unless they make an artificial one.

 

[ThunderDragon]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

The odds of #3 facing #4 aren't too high. If you're the Pats, the only way you travel to Cincinnati (assuming you win your playoff games) is if the Bengals beat the Jets on the road Sunday, beat the Ravens/Steelers/Broncos/whoever next week, and then beat the Chargers in San Diego. The odds of that seem pretty low to me -- about a 10% chance. And, of course, it's not as if playing in Cincinnati for the AFCCG as opposed to playing in Foxboro for the AFCCG is going to be decisive as to who wins the game. Maybe the Pats win 65% of the time if its Foxboro, and 35% of the time if its in Cincinnati. So the odds of the Pats getting screwed -- i.e., losing in the AFCCG to Cincinnati in Cincinnati because the game was in Cincinnati -- is about 3%, and that's assuming NE wins all of their games (except week 17, which we're assuming they tank).So does resting your players and avoiding injuries to your key players increase your odds of making it to the Super Bowl by more than 3%? That's up to each team/coach to decide, but I think most would say yes. Having a bye week is really nice, and the 3/4 seeds do not get a bye week unless they make an artificial one.

ChaseStu....I think by you phrasing it within the context of percentages is insightful. NFL coaching staffs always crunch the #s.

 

[David Yudkin]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?

why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?

are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

The odds of #3 facing #4 aren't too high. If you're the Pats, the only way you travel to Cincinnati (assuming you win your playoff games) is if the Bengals beat the Jets on the road Sunday, beat the Ravens/Steelers/Broncos/whoever next week, and then beat the Chargers in San Diego. The odds of that seem pretty low to me -- about a 10% chance. And, of course, it's not as if playing in Cincinnati for the AFCCG as opposed to playing in Foxboro for the AFCCG is going to be decisive as to who wins the game. Maybe the Pats win 65% of the time if its Foxboro, and 35% of the time if its in Cincinnati. So the odds of the Pats getting screwed -- i.e., losing in the AFCCG to Cincinnati in Cincinnati because the game was in Cincinnati -- is about 3%, and that's assuming NE wins all of their games (except week 17, which we're assuming they tank).So does resting your players and avoiding injuries to your key players increase your odds of making it to the Super Bowl by more than 3%? That's up to each team/coach to decide, but I think most would say yes. Having a bye week is really nice, and the 3/4 seeds do not get a bye week unless they make an artificial one.

The Pats have won 23 games in a row with Brady starting at home and have won every playoff game in NE with Brady at QB (8-0). I'm guessing they would have a greater than 65% chance to beat CIN in Foxboro.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

The odds of #3 facing #4 aren't too high. If you're the Pats, the only way you travel to Cincinnati (assuming you win your playoff games) is if the Bengals beat the Jets on the road Sunday, beat the Ravens/Steelers/Broncos/whoever next week, and then beat the Chargers in San Diego. The odds of that seem pretty low to me -- about a 10% chance. And, of course, it's not as if playing in Cincinnati for the AFCCG as opposed to playing in Foxboro for the AFCCG is going to be decisive as to who wins the game. Maybe the Pats win 65% of the time if its Foxboro, and 35% of the time if its in Cincinnati. So the odds of the Pats getting screwed -- i.e., losing in the AFCCG to Cincinnati in Cincinnati because the game was in Cincinnati -- is about 3%, and that's assuming NE wins all of their games (except week 17, which we're assuming they tank).So does resting your players and avoiding injuries to your key players increase your odds of making it to the Super Bowl by more than 3%? That's up to each team/coach to decide, but I think most would say yes. Having a bye week is really nice, and the 3/4 seeds do not get a bye week unless they make an artificial one.

so, you set the first % but then leave the second up to the coach to determine?and as for your 65/35 win % evaluation, I think that's really a faulty way to look at it, as we could make the case that a coach will see home field as a 100% chance of having an edge in the game.I'm not making the case either way because I have no idea what belichick's thinking, but arbitrarily assigning something a random value and then weighing some speculative imaginary benefit against it seems kind of sketchy.if a guy's actually hurt, then maybe he sits, but if you can do something to improve your chances, even by a small amount, then you'd think that's the path to take.

 

[Chase Stuart]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?

why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?

are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

The odds of #3 facing #4 aren't too high. If you're the Pats, the only way you travel to Cincinnati (assuming you win your playoff games) is if the Bengals beat the Jets on the road Sunday, beat the Ravens/Steelers/Broncos/whoever next week, and then beat the Chargers in San Diego. The odds of that seem pretty low to me -- about a 10% chance. And, of course, it's not as if playing in Cincinnati for the AFCCG as opposed to playing in Foxboro for the AFCCG is going to be decisive as to who wins the game. Maybe the Pats win 65% of the time if its Foxboro, and 35% of the time if its in Cincinnati. So the odds of the Pats getting screwed -- i.e., losing in the AFCCG to Cincinnati in Cincinnati because the game was in Cincinnati -- is about 3%, and that's assuming NE wins all of their games (except week 17, which we're assuming they tank).So does resting your players and avoiding injuries to your key players increase your odds of making it to the Super Bowl by more than 3%? That's up to each team/coach to decide, but I think most would say yes. Having a bye week is really nice, and the 3/4 seeds do not get a bye week unless they make an artificial one.

The Pats have won 23 games in a row with Brady starting at home and have won every playoff game in NE with Brady at QB (8-0). I'm guessing they would have a greater than 65% chance to beat CIN in Foxboro.

If Cincinnati actually had a 35% chance of winning, the money line for Cincinnati @ NE would be +185, after accounting for the vig. That seems about right to me.I don't see the relevance of what the Pats did in 2004 at home in the playoffs for what they do at home in the playoffs now. The '04 Pats were a great team, this team not so much. There's no Corey Dillon, or Richard Seymour, or Deion Branch (who was a great playoff performer, unlike the new WR they have), or Willie McGinist, or Tedy Bruschi, or Mike Vrabel, or Rodney Harrison, or Ty Law, or Eric Mangini, or Charlie Weis, or Ted Johnson, or Asante Samuel, or Eugene Wilson, or Randall Gay, or Josh McDaniels, or Adam Vinatieri, or David Patten or Troy Brown or David Givens.

So no, I don't think it's relevant that the Pats have won 23 games in a row with Brady starting at home or every playoff game in NE with him. Especially against a cold-weather team like the Bengals.

 

[David Yudkin]

if #3 faces #4, #3 gets home field --- or am I not understanding something?

why wouldn't you want to be #3 rather than #4?

are we making the case that belichick has a preferred opponent between indy and sd, or that he would rather houston win to thwart some other team?

The odds of #3 facing #4 aren't too high. If you're the Pats, the only way you travel to Cincinnati (assuming you win your playoff games) is if the Bengals beat the Jets on the road Sunday, beat the Ravens/Steelers/Broncos/whoever next week, and then beat the Chargers in San Diego. The odds of that seem pretty low to me -- about a 10% chance. And, of course, it's not as if playing in Cincinnati for the AFCCG as opposed to playing in Foxboro for the AFCCG is going to be decisive as to who wins the game. Maybe the Pats win 65% of the time if its Foxboro, and 35% of the time if its in Cincinnati. So the odds of the Pats getting screwed -- i.e., losing in the AFCCG to Cincinnati in Cincinnati because the game was in Cincinnati -- is about 3%, and that's assuming NE wins all of their games (except week 17, which we're assuming they tank).So does resting your players and avoiding injuries to your key players increase your odds of making it to the Super Bowl by more than 3%? That's up to each team/coach to decide, but I think most would say yes. Having a bye week is really nice, and the 3/4 seeds do not get a bye week unless they make an artificial one.

The Pats have won 23 games in a row with Brady starting at home and have won every playoff game in NE with Brady at QB (8-0). I'm guessing they would have a greater than 65% chance to beat CIN in Foxboro.

If Cincinnati actually had a 35% chance of winning, the money line for Cincinnati @ NE would be +185, after accounting for the vig. That seems about right to me.I don't see the relevance of what the Pats did in 2004 at home in the playoffs for what they do at home in the playoffs now. The '04 Pats were a great team, this team not so much. There's no Corey Dillon, or Richard Seymour, or Deion Branch (who was a great playoff performer, unlike the new WR they have), or Willie McGinist, or Tedy Bruschi, or Mike Vrabel, or Rodney Harrison, or Ty Law, or Eric Mangini, or Charlie Weis, or Ted Johnson, or Asante Samuel, or Eugene Wilson, or Randall Gay, or Josh McDaniels, or Adam Vinatieri, or David Patten or Troy Brown or David Givens.

So no, I don't think it's relevant that the Pats have won 23 games in a row with Brady starting at home or every playoff game in NE with him. Especially against a cold-weather team like the Bengals.

See, here's the issue I have (of which there may not be a solution). Bottom line is, the Pats win at home with Brady at QB. You can say what you want about this team is not the same as others. Yes, that's true. But they have won a ton with Brady at home over the years (even with non SB teams) and won in the playoffs (with teams that were not great either). THIS YEAR the Pats went 8-0 at home, outscoring opponents 250 to 96. I still think you are slighting the Pats by going with only a 65% chance to win at home.

 

[Chase Stuart]

See, here's the issue I have (of which there may not be a solution). Bottom line is, the Pats win at home with Brady at QB. You can say what you want about this team is not the same as others. Yes, that's true. But they have won a ton with Brady at home over the years (even with non SB teams) and won in the playoffs (with teams that were not great either). THIS YEAR the Pats went 8-0 at home, outscoring opponents 250 to 96. I still think you are slighting the Pats by going with only a 65% chance to win at home.

The Pats needed a miracle to beat the Bills; they got lucky at the end against the Ravens. It's not like they're invincible at home. I think that 59-0 game against the Titans skews those numbers a bit.Sometimes, splits happen. Generally, teams that are amazing at home over a small stretch of games and bad on the road over a similar stretch, tend to play about average at home and about average at home the rest of the way. When I say average, I mean like the average team at home or on the road. I don't think the Pats have an incredible ability to not lose at home, and there have been countless examples of teams that went 8-0 at home in the regular season and then lost at home in the playoffs. And for all your Brady talk, they haven't won a home playoff game since a lot of those guys I named left.What percentage chance would you say the Pats have of beating the Bengals at home in the AFCCG?

 

[David Yudkin]

See, here's the issue I have (of which there may not be a solution). Bottom line is, the Pats win at home with Brady at QB. You can say what you want about this team is not the same as others. Yes, that's true. But they have won a ton with Brady at home over the years (even with non SB teams) and won in the playoffs (with teams that were not great either). THIS YEAR the Pats went 8-0 at home, outscoring opponents 250 to 96. I still think you are slighting the Pats by going with only a 65% chance to win at home.

The Pats needed a miracle to beat the Bills; they got lucky at the end against the Ravens. It's not like they're invincible at home. I think that 59-0 game against the Titans skews those numbers a bit.Sometimes, splits happen. Generally, teams that are amazing at home over a small stretch of games and bad on the road over a similar stretch, tend to play about average at home and about average at home the rest of the way. When I say average, I mean like the average team at home or on the road. I don't think the Pats have an incredible ability to not lose at home, and there have been countless examples of teams that went 8-0 at home in the regular season and then lost at home in the playoffs. And for all your Brady talk, they haven't won a home playoff game since a lot of those guys I named left.What percentage chance would you say the Pats have of beating the Bengals at home in the AFCCG?

I would say 75-80% . . . which I am sure you will say is too high. But if we are going to go with "almost lost" games, clearly Brady was not himself in the two EARLY games you mentioned that they barely won.But if you use that logic for the Pats, then you have to use it for the Colts. The Colts barely beat the Jags, 49ers, Texans, and Pats in Indy this year and were in a dog fight against the Jets. While we will never know what could have happened, I think the Jets may have won the game last week even if the Colts left their regulars in.So based on your assertion that the Pats barely beat the Bills and Ravens, are we to then consider the Colts a .500 team at home this year because they easily could have lost more games than they won? Of course not.IMO, one of the main differences in the Pats this year is their sudden propensity for turning the ball over in the red zone. Combined with going for it on 4th and short several times, that has killed them. I know it is easier said then done, if they can simply get more points on the board in those situations I think they can beat anyone, even if the defense does not have the long list of characters from prior teams.I would be very surprised if NE lost at home in the playoffs this year, even if they somehow miraculously hosted a 2nd game in the AFCC. While I would give them a 75-80% chance to win at home, I would probably only given them a 30-40% chance to win on the road against any of the teams they could face. I don't think the order they would play IND and SD (if that's how things played out) would really matter all that much.