In five years, 5-1 (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

I found this blurb on another site - pay content so can't link

It's bizarre to watch Shanahan and his quarterback consistently beat Bill Belichick and his quarterback. Denver has beaten New England five of six times since 2001

This struck a chord with me. I haven't been able to see any of the games so what does Shanahan do to get results like these against one of the top minds in the coaching ranks who in the same stretch has won three Super bowls. Does anyone have a similar record against Belichick (certainly not inside the division)Not fishing - can anyone come up with good reasons?

 

[moleculo]

I found this blurb on another site - pay content so can't link

It's bizarre to watch Shanahan and his quarterback consistently beat Bill Belichick and his quarterback. Denver has beaten New England five of six times since 2001

This struck a chord with me. I haven't been able to see any of the games so what does Shanahan do to get results like these against one of the top minds in the coaching ranks who in the same stretch has won three Super bowls. Does anyone have a similar record against Belichick (certainly not inside the division)Not fishing - can anyone come up with good reasons?

maybe Shanahan is to offense what Belichick is to defense? Shanahan is an excellent coach in his own right.

 

[Exile]

I found this blurb on another site - pay content so can't link

It's bizarre to watch Shanahan and his quarterback consistently beat Bill Belichick and his quarterback. Denver has beaten New England five of six times since 2001

This struck a chord with me. I haven't been able to see any of the games so what does Shanahan do to get results like these against one of the top minds in the coaching ranks who in the same stretch has won three Super bowls. Does anyone have a similar record against Belichick (certainly not inside the division)Not fishing - can anyone come up with good reasons?

maybe Shanahan is to offense what Belichick is to defense? Shanahan is an excellent coach in his own right.

I think that's an apt comment. Both are great coaches and even though I think BB is a notch above Shanny, I have to admit that Shanny has BB's number. It kind of reminds me of the Spy in Stratego...the Field Marshall can kill a lot more pieces than the Spy can...but the Spy can kill the Field Marshall.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Bill Belichick is skeletors b!@tch

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Since 2001, BB leads MS 3-0 in Super Bowl wins so I don't think he's worried about being owned in 5 games that in the overall scheme of things don't mean that much. I'm sure he'd love to have won the majority of those but I doubt he'd trade places with Shanny over that time period.

 

[PMENFAN]

No explanation for it. It's not like the Broncos dominated the game. One TD came on a perfectly thrown ball. No defense beats that. The other came on a blown coverage. The safety over the top didn't show up until Walker had the ball. Sanders, a rookie. Broncos line blocked great, Pats had little to no pressure. Pats D looked unprepared. Even w/ the 2 long TD's, it's only 17-7. Pat's O is struggling, no question. Brady's struggling. But, it's only week 3.

I'd call it an anomaly, because they've been far from domination. Take the 83 yarder away, and it's a different ball game. Sure the Broncos ran the ball okay, but the Pats got stops when they needed them. I was more displeased with the lack of a consistent pass rush, and overpersuit when they did get one.

 

[msommer]

Since 2001, BB leads MS 3-0 in Super Bowl wins so I don't think he's worried about being owned in 5 games that in the overall scheme of things don't mean that much. I'm sure he'd love to have won the majority of those but I doubt he'd trade places with Shanny over that time period.

He might have had a shot at another title had he not lost in Denver in January - think he would like that one back?Nobody is asking about trading places - my question was - what is it that Shanahan does that is poison to BB/NEP/Brady

 

[thatguy]

The one loss came with Danny Kannel at the helm. And it was almost a win. It took an intentional safety (BB had the long snapper snap it high into the back of the endzone to avoid giving Denver good field position) and a last minute TD drive just for NE to pull it out. This was in NE's second Super Bowl season. Danny Kannel couldn't throw the ball more than ten yards downfield.

 

[redman]

All but one of those games was at Denver, which is about as big of a homefield advantage as you can get in the NFL. I doubt there'd be such a disparity on a neutral field.

 

[msommer]

All but one of those games was at Denver, which is about as big of a homefield advantage as you can get in the NFL. I doubt there'd be such a disparity on a neutral field.

Memo to groundskeeper - when playing NE - please elevate the field one mile Check

 

[PMENFAN]

Since 2001, BB leads MS 3-0 in Super Bowl wins so I don't think he's worried about being owned in 5 games that in the overall scheme of things don't mean that much. I'm sure he'd love to have won the majority of those but I doubt he'd trade places with Shanny over that time period.

He might have had a shot at another title had he not lost in Denver in January - think he would like that one back?Nobody is asking about trading places - my question was - what is it that Shanahan does that is poison to BB/NEP/Brady

That one in Denver was a killer, but it turned on one play, really two plays. Brady makes an idiotic pass, not much BB or Shanny has to do w/ it. Totally out of Brady's character. Bailey makes a great play. Broncos get a TD, when the Pats would have gotten at least 3 our of it, and maybe 7. At least a 10 point swing. And, the Brown punt muff. Dude never muffs punts. I think the Broncos got another TD on that one, or at least 3. That's the game in a nutshell. KFaulk also put on on the ground, when the Pats were driving, but that happens, so the game didn't turn on that. That's not BB getting out coached. This was also a Pats team decimated by injury. One flukey thing about these games is they're always early in the season. Shanahans teams always peak early, at lease I think they do, hence they never won a playoff game before last year since Elway left. BB teams peak late. Hence, they never lost a playoff game until last season. Just a theory. The Pats, every year, play better as the year goes on. Even the 2002 season, when they missed the playoffs at 9-7, they were much better, and would have been a threat in the playoffs. They identify the weakness and work on it. I like that in the philosophy. One knock I have on Shanahan is that he identifies his strength, and tries to make it stronger. IMHO, it's why his teams peak early, and the competition catches up to him. I still think he's a great coach. My knock on BB? Too content to probe too much. They'll probe for a quarter, and then march. I hate that. Doug Gabriel this week was a perfect example. Guy has got good hands, speed, etc. Get him on the field, and involved. At least on the field, so they're no doubling the tight ends all night w/ the safety over the top. Run some WR screens. Open up the playbook. You ran 55 pass plays, or 55 times you dropped back. but only about 30 plays. Open it up. At the same time, I know it's early, and that's the way they work.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Since 2001, BB leads MS 3-0 in Super Bowl wins so I don't think he's worried about being owned in 5 games that in the overall scheme of things don't mean that much. I'm sure he'd love to have won the majority of those but I doubt he'd trade places with Shanny over that time period.

He didn't ask anything about past superbowls...his question was does Shanny own Bellichick. Way to stick to the topic Pats homer.

 

[PMENFAN]

The one loss came with Danny Kannel at the helm. And it was almost a win. It took an intentional safety (BB had the long snapper snap it high into the back of the endzone to avoid giving Denver good field position) and a last minute TD drive just for NE to pull it out. This was in NE's second Super Bowl season. Danny Kannel couldn't throw the ball more than ten yards downfield.

To be fair, NE started 7 rookies in that game too, and Troy Brown in the secondary. DannyKannel had a great game, IIRC. It wasn't like Kannel came out and threw for 120 yards.

 

[The Ref]

Every team has another team that has it's number. That team for the Patriots is the Broncos. This goes back for the last 25 years.

There seems to be a game of paper scissors rock in the AFC over the past few years though. The Pats cant beat the Broncos, the Broncos can't beat the Colts, and the Colts cant beat the Patriots.

 

[Workhorse]

I think that Shanahan's zone blocking running scheme gives the Patriots 3-4 defense fits. The one common thread through the Bronco wins has been a very strong running game...

The other problem for the Pats against the Broncos is that they are constantly playing from behind. Belichick is the kind of coach that makes great halftime adjustments. Shanny seems to be a guy who scripts out all of his offensive plays to start a game. Seems like Shanahan's style beats Belichick more often than not.

 

[shredhead]

Every team has another team that has it's number. That team for the Patriots is the Broncos. This goes back for the last 25 years.

Late '70's, Mile High Stadium, Denver, Colorado, Robin Williams as "Mork" dresses up as a Broncos cheerleader for an episode of Mork and Mindy. Broncos win 45-10. Its actually closer to a 30 year domination.

 

[shredhead]

It kind of reminds me of the Spy in Stratego...the Field Marshall can kill a lot more pieces than the Spy can...but the Spy can kill the Field Marshall.

Nice Stratego reference. I haven't played that game since I was a kid. I tought the spy could kill or be killed by any other piece depending on who is the attacker. I could be wrong, like I said it's been awhile.

 

[pats3in4]

Looking at the games:

1. 2001: Broncos beat Pats in Denver when Brady throws 4 late INTs. Pats were up by a good chunk, then let Denver back in and eventually lost the game.

2. 2002: Denver handed the struggling Pats a loss in Foxboro in the midst of a 4 game losing streak. This was shortly after KC and SD showed that the Pats D was a fraud and that Brady couldn't hit a long ball to save his life.

3. 2003: Pats win thriller in Denver on MNF, but Kannell was QB for Denver. Pats were without Seymour and Ted Washington, though, so Denver running game could protect Kannell. Denver badly misplayed free kick after Pats' intentional safety, likely affecting the outcome. Pats made big mistakes, too...awful line drive punt returned for a TD and a penalty on Rodney Harrison that kept a TD drive alive.

4. 2005: Denver goes up big at home, taking advantage of awful ILBs for Pats and horrible play by CB Dwane Starks who had a bullseye on him all game. Pats failed at late comeback, but likely aided by soft D played by Denver in 2nd half.

5. 2005 playoffs: Pats actually play Broncos tough in Denver, but uncharacteristically turn it over 5 times, setting up some very short fields and leading to a Denver blowout.

6. 2006: Denver throttles Pats offense. Pats play Denver's O tough, but give up two big TDs that are the difference.

I'd say that Shanny clearly outcoached BB in the 2002 & 2006 games. He probably outcoached BB in the 2005 regular season game in that he took advantage of his superior talent and exploited weaknesses in the Pats' D that BB couldn't overcome no matter how much he tried. The coaching matchup was probably a draw in the others...in the 2005 playoff game and 2001 game he saw his opponent imploding and didn't do anything stupid to help give the game back; In the 2003 game, the game was a seesaw battle in which both sides had their shining moments and stupid moments.

I wouldn't say Shanny owns BB. I would say that he knows when he's got a better squad or recognizes when the Pats are imploding and doesn't do anything dumb to tip the scales back in BB's favor. This should be obvious to all coaches, but surprisingly it isn't and there are coaches whose egos will contribute greatly to their team's loss (Mike Martz and super bowl 36, anyone?). Broncos fans should be thankful that Shanny isn't one of them, at least when he plays the Pats.

 

[SSOG]

I found this blurb on another site - pay content so can't link

It's bizarre to watch Shanahan and his quarterback consistently beat Bill Belichick and his quarterback. Denver has beaten New England five of six times since 2001

This struck a chord with me. I haven't been able to see any of the games so what does Shanahan do to get results like these against one of the top minds in the coaching ranks who in the same stretch has won three Super bowls. Does anyone have a similar record against Belichick (certainly not inside the division)Not fishing - can anyone come up with good reasons?

Nobody else who has faced Bellichick's Patriots 4 times or more has a winning record against them.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

 

[Ghost Rider]

All but one of those games was at Denver, which is about as big of a homefield advantage as you can get in the NFL. I doubt there'd be such a disparity on a neutral field.

2 of the 6 games have been in New England, not 1.

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

Perhaps, but think of all of the people who said Belichick owned Manning up until last year. That sample was just as small.

 

[SSOG]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

Yup.Want a bigger one, though? The Denver Broncos and the New England Patriots are the closest thing to a divisional rivalry, outside of a divisional rivalry. Due to flukes in scheduling, Denver and New England played each other every year for 9 straight seasons from 1995 (the start of Shanahan's tenure) to 2003. 2004 was the first time they didn't play in a decade, and to make up for it, they played twice in 2005, and once in 2006. That means they've squared off 12 times in the last 12 years. Denver's record? 9-3.More ownership fun: John Elway was 9-0 against New England in his career. He was the QB when New England suffered the worst home loss in their history (when Shannon Sharpe picked up a phone on the sidelines and shouted "someone call the national guard, because we're killing the Patriots!").

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

As a Pats fan, I am SHOCKED that other teams have not apparently attempted to copy Shanahan techniques against BB/TB, because he OWNZ the Patriots. Brady's stats are something like (NOT exact) 68-12 versus non-Bronco teams and 2-9 against the Broncos. It's a ridiculous stat.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

 

[TWindis]

If the referees would have called the game correctly in last years playoffs. Shanny would have been home watching New England and Pittsburgh!!!

 

[SSOG]

If the referees would have called the game correctly in last years playoffs. Shanny would have been home watching New England and Pittsburgh!!!

Wah, wah, wah. Bad calls went both ways, buddy. When your team gets whupped by 14 points, you don't blame poor calls, you blame your team. It's not like Denver edged New England by a point on a last second 52 yard field goal here.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

Yup.Want a bigger one, though? The Denver Broncos and the New England Patriots are the closest thing to a divisional rivalry, outside of a divisional rivalry. Due to flukes in scheduling, Denver and New England played each other every year for 9 straight seasons from 1995 (the start of Shanahan's tenure) to 2003. 2004 was the first time they didn't play in a decade, and to make up for it, they played twice in 2005, and once in 2006. That means they've squared off 12 times in the last 12 years. Denver's record? 9-3.

More ownership fun: John Elway was 9-0 against New England in his career. He was the QB when New England suffered the worst home loss in their history (when Shannon Sharpe picked up a phone on the sidelines and shouted "someone call the national guard, because we're killing the Patriots!").

OK, now we're talking some serious o\/\/nage. GB Elway.

 

[pats3in4]

More ownership fun: John Elway was 9-0 against New England in his career. He was the QB when New England suffered the worst home loss in their history (when Shannon Sharpe picked up a phone on the sidelines and shouted "someone call the national guard, because we're killing the Patriots!").

I don't think any Pats fan will object to the notion that Elway owned the Pats. When talking about the Pats' 5 SB trips, most Pats fans now will comment that the SB31 trip was made possible by Jacksonville's surprise victory in Denver. Back then, lots of fans arrogantly lamented the lost opportunity to get back at Sharpe for his phone antics earlier that year in Foxboro. The hindsight has clearly gotten more focused as time passed.

 

[thatguy]

If the referees would have called the game correctly in last years playoffs. Shanny would have been home watching New England and Pittsburgh!!!

Your first sentence is a fragment. Consider revising.

 

[((Morpheus))]

Funny, over those five years I count 3-0 in favor of Belichek.

 

[SSOG]

Funny, over those five years I count 3-0 in favor of Belichek.

Try counting again. You know those games where the other team scores more points than your team does? Those are known as "losses", and Bellichick has 5 of them.The only thing I can think of is that maybe you're confused, and instead of "those five years" you meant "the last two years", and instead of "3-0" you meant "0-3". right back at you.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

If the referees would have called the game correctly in last years playoffs. Shanny would have been home watching New England and Pittsburgh!!!

If Brady would not have FUMBLED against the Raiders, you MIGHT have had a LEGITIMATE championship.

 

[DawnBTVS]

If the referees would have called the game correctly in last years playoffs. Shanny would have been home watching New England and Pittsburgh!!!

If Brady would not have FUMBLED against the Raiders, you MIGHT have had a LEGITIMATE championship.

Other 2 SB wins flawed too then?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

 

[((Morpheus))]

@ the Pats haters.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

....a limitation of statistics, not necessarily of the theory of ownage.

 

[moleculo]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right.

Here comes some ownage!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

I'm sure. If they play six games, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations of outcomes. There are 7 ways for each team to win 5 or more games (it could lose the first game, or the second game, or the third game . . . or the sixth game, or it could win all the games). So there are 14 ways for at least one of the teams to win 5 games. 14/64 = 22%.

 

[#@%&$!?]

@ the Pats haters.

Why would you think denver homers hate the pats? Hell, they love playing the pats.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure?

When it is MT and math, you can bet that he is sure.

 

[msommer]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

I'm sure. If they play six games, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations of outcomes. There are 7 ways for each team to win 5 or more games (it could lose the first game, or the second game, or the third game . . . or the sixth game, or it could win all the games). So there are 14 ways for at least one of the teams to win 5 games. 14/64 = 22%.

Either team winning six games will not produce the 5-1 result though

 

[The Jerk]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

I'm sure. If they play six games, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations of outcomes. There are 7 ways for each team to win 5 or more games (it could lose the first game, or the second game, or the third game . . . or the sixth game, or it could win all the games). So there are 14 ways for at least one of the teams to win 5 games. 14/64 = 22%.

If you're reading quickly, you may not notice that this 22% means that the probability of the Broncos winning at least 5 of 6 against the Patriots is 11% and the probability of the Patriots beating the Broncos at least 5 of 6 is also 11%. However, this assumes that every game is a 50% likelihood of winning by either team.However, the Patriots have been much more successful than the Broncos since the start of the 2001 season.In games played against all other teams than the Broncos, the Patriots are 69-19 (including playoffs) in 2001-06. That's a winning percentage of .7841The Broncos are 48-33 against all other teams except the Patriots (including playoffs) during the same span. That's a winning percentage of .5926So games between the two could be expected to be split along this ratio: 7841:5926, or normalized to 100%, the Patriots should be expected to win 56.96% of the time.With this asymmetric distribution, the probability of the Patriots winning at least 5 of 6 games vs. the Broncos is 18.9%, while the probability of the Broncos winning at least 5 of 6 games vs. the Patriots is 5.7%. This is nearly half the 11% expected of the 50/50 split above, and is clearly more statistically significant.NOTE: As Denver has hosted 4 of the 6 games, factoring in the home field advantage slightly lower the 56.96% number favoring the Patriots. In addition, factoring the ratio on a year by year basis rather than lumping in all 5+ seasons together may also further mitigate this number.

 

[#@%&$!?]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

I'm sure. If they play six games, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations of outcomes. There are 7 ways for each team to win 5 or more games (it could lose the first game, or the second game, or the third game . . . or the sixth game, or it could win all the games). So there are 14 ways for at least one of the teams to win 5 games. 14/64 = 22%.

If you're reading quickly, you may not notice that this 22% means that the probability of the Broncos winning at least 5 of 6 against the Patriots is 11% and the probability of the Patriots beating the Broncos at least 5 of 6 is also 11%. However, this assumes that every game is a 50% likelihood of winning by either team.However, the Patriots have been much more successful than the Broncos since the start of the 2001 season.In games played against all other teams than the Broncos, the Patriots are 69-19 (including playoffs) in 2001-06. That's a winning percentage of .7841The Broncos are 48-33 against all other teams except the Patriots (including playoffs) during the same span. That's a winning percentage of .5926So games between the two could be expected to be split along this ratio: 7841:5926, or normalized to 100%, the Patriots should be expected to win 56.96% of the time.With this asymmetric distribution, the probability of the Patriots winning at least 5 of 6 games vs. the Broncos is 18.9%, while the probability of the Broncos winning at least 5 of 6 games vs. the Patriots is 5.7%. This is nearly half the 11% expected of the 50/50 split above, and is clearly more statistically significant.NOTE: As Denver has hosted 4 of the 6 games, factoring in the home field advantage slightly lower the 56.96% number favoring the Patriots. In addition, factoring the ratio on a year by year basis rather than lumping in all 5+ seasons together may also further mitigate this number.

my cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

I'm sure. If they play six games, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations of outcomes. There are 7 ways for each team to win 5 or more games (it could lose the first game, or the second game, or the third game . . . or the sixth game, or it could win all the games). So there are 14 ways for at least one of the teams to win 5 games. 14/64 = 22%.

Either team winning six games will not produce the 5-1 result though

Bolded it for you.

 

[Borat]

Bill Belichick is skeletors b!@tch

Why do you hate the Patriots so much? I've noticed that you take every chance you get to say something negative about the Pats. That would be fine if you had an objective point of view, but I sense some real anger coming from you every time the Patriots are discussed. Just curious. TIA.

 

[The Jerk]

Bill Belichick is skeletors b!@tch

Why do you hate the Patriots so much? I've noticed that you take every chance you get to say something negative about the Pats. That would be fine if you had an objective point of view, but I sense some real anger coming from you every time the Patriots are discussed. Just curious. TIA.

It's not an exclusive thing. The Scientist also takes a shot at the Steelers any time it's a possibility.

 

[Borat]

Bill Belichick is skeletors b!@tch

Why do you hate the Patriots so much? I've noticed that you take every chance you get to say something negative about the Pats. That would be fine if you had an objective point of view, but I sense some real anger coming from you every time the Patriots are discussed. Just curious. TIA.

It's not an exclusive thing. The Scientist also takes a shot at the Steelers any time it's a possibility.

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that.Taking shots at the Pats and the Steelers at every turn... I'll guess maybe he's a Browns fan?

 

[Boston]

*In general the Broncos have always owned the Pats. It also seems like about 80% of the games have been in Denver.

*Shanny's playcalling has always given the Pats/BB fits. It's very apparent he can diagnose the Pats weaknesses and explot them, especially on third down. He doesn't do anything too fancy, he just takes what the Patriots give him and doesn't get too greedy. On defense they have had success at the line of scrimmage and have usually not allowed the Pats to establish an offensive identity. As far as the game the Pats won a few years ago...as painful as it is to admit it if Danny Kannell's not behind center than it could have been a different story.

*Rod Smith is a monster Patriot killer. The guy has done as much damage to the Pats as anyone else in the league. He seems to be automatic on third downs against the Pats.

*In the luck/ref department the Pats have had their share of breaks during the BB era. Unfortunately it never seems to happen against the Broncos. It's usually a case of if it can go wrong it will go wrong.

 

[moleculo]

Am I the only one who thinks it's too small a sampling size to talk ownage?

If they each have a 50% chance of winning each game, one team or the other will win at least 5 out of 6 games about 22% of the time. So there's nothing statistically significant going on here.

are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Probability of one team winning 5 out of 5 is 3.1%, I think probability of winning 5 out of 6 should be just slightly higher than that. I'm a little rusty with my probability theory...

I'm sure. If they play six games, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations of outcomes. There are 7 ways for each team to win 5 or more games (it could lose the first game, or the second game, or the third game . . . or the sixth game, or it could win all the games). So there are 14 ways for at least one of the teams to win 5 games. 14/64 = 22%.

I'll buy that The obvious next question is at what probability do you set the ownage threashhold? 5%?