Turnover Margin (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I was reading through Joe's random shots from last week (I've been on vacation) and he wrote that "The more I watch football, the more I believe it's about turnovers." So I decided to check how this year's playoff teams are doing in the turnover department. Eleven teams had a turnover margin of +6 or more, and all but one (Kansas City, who came very close and arguably were one of the best 6 teams in the AFC and definitely were one of the best 12 in the NFL), made it.1. Cin +242. Den +203. Car +164. Ind +125. Jax +115. NYG +117. Sea +108. KC +89. Pitt +710. TB +711. Chi +6Washington +1New England - 6The Patriots were second to last in the NFL (Houston) with just 18 takeaways. The next worst playoff team had 50% more; Seattle, with 27 takeaways. So New England is far and away the worst team in the playoffs at forcing turnovers...how have they done in years past?In 2004, they were tied for 3rd in the NFL with 36.In 2003, they were tied for 2nd in the NFL with 41.In 2001, they were tied for 7th in the NFL with 35.The lone year (2002) they didn't win the Super Bowl, they tied for 13th with 29 takeaways.For what it's worth, here is how the SB teams did each year with:Year: SB Winner, Takeaways (TO Margin); SB Loser, Takeaways (TO Margin)2004: Pats, 36(9); Eagles, 28(6)2003: Pats, 41(17); Panthers, 26(-5)2002: Bucs, 38(17); Raiders, 31(12)2001: Pats, 35(7); Rams, 34(-10)Avg: 37.5(12.5); 29.75 (0.25)

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?So NE didn't do well in turnover margin yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that. It is an indication of a good team that is well coached and has a proven track record. It is a team that can afford a blip in turnover margin.Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margin is important to a winning season and most playoff teams do well in that area.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?

So NE didn't do well in turnover margain yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that.

Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margain is important and most playoff teams do well in that area.

Sorry FlaVVed. I wasn't aware that NE was the only team with a negative differential, or how strong the Jaguars were. Personally I expected the Pats to cream the Jags (and I still do), but this is at least making me re-think that game a little bit more.I started looking at these numbers because I think the other three games are really coin flips; these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?

So NE didn't do well in turnover margain yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that.

Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margain is important and most playoff teams do well in that area.

Sorry FlaVVed. I wasn't aware that NE was the only team with a negative differential, or how strong the Jaguars were. Personally I expected the Pats to cream the Jags (and I still do), but this is at least making me re-think that game a little bit more.I started looking at these numbers because I think the other three games are really coin flips; these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Maybe you should look at it as just another factor as to why NE could be a factor in the playoffs. They bucked the turnover trend yet are still in the playoffs.I'm not a NE fan but admire what they do.

 

[Doug Drinen]

these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Only if past turnover margins are indicative of future turnover margins. And I'm not sure if they are. MT has studied this more extensively than I have, but what I've studied indicates that there is some predictive value in the interception margin, but that the fumble margin is essentially random. I even recall MT having some interesting quotes from defensive coordinators saying as much.

Several years ago, I ran a ton of regressions to see what statistics best predicted playoff success. Turnover margin was not significant.

Turnovers explain the past. But as far as I know they do not predict the future.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?

So NE didn't do well in turnover margain yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that.

Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margain is important and most playoff teams do well in that area.

Sorry FlaVVed. I wasn't aware that NE was the only team with a negative differential, or how strong the Jaguars were. Personally I expected the Pats to cream the Jags (and I still do), but this is at least making me re-think that game a little bit more.I started looking at these numbers because I think the other three games are really coin flips; these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Maybe you should look at it as just another factor as to why NE could be a factor in the playoffs. They bucked the turnover trend yet are still in the playoffs.I'm not a NE fan but admire what they do.

I don't think NE would have made the playoffs in any other division this year. They went 10-5 when it counted...Beating the hapless AFC East 5 times

Beating the Falcons, a medicore NFC team, without Vick

Beating the 4-12 Raiders at home

Beating the 3-13 Saints at home

Beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh

Beating the Bucs at home

That Bucs win was tremendously impressive, but it can only count for so much. The Steelers win was also a big one, but it was all the way back in week three. Now let's look at their losses

Lost to the Colts

Lost @Denver

Lost vs. San Diego

Lost @KC

Lost @Carolina

The Panthers, Chargers and Chiefs were inconsistent this year, so it's certainly possible that NE got them on their best day. And there's nothing to feel bad about when you lose to the Colts or the Broncos. There's no doubt that the other three division champs outplayed the Pats this year, and the Chiefs/Chargers/Steelers/Jaguars/Patriots all seemed about even this year to me. (The Steelers played better when Big Ben was in, but they did lose to the Pats). But NE can thank playing in the AFC East more than anything else for their playoff berth this weekend.

I expect them to beat up on the Jags, and then have a very difficult time in round 2.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Or is this just a Jets fan trying to reach for a reason not to like the Patriots in the postseason?

 

[Serenity Now]

The Pats D were horrendous on turnovers (interceptions at least) until they started playing Ellis Hobbs. And that wasn't until at least game 10, I think. They have improved steadily, but they were really hurting in this area. Which would stand to reason given the disarray in the secondary and the lack of a guy like Bruschi who has a nose for the ball.

 

[jwvdcw]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

 

[Chase Stuart]

these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Only if past turnover margins are indicative of future turnover margins. And I'm not sure if they are. MT has studied this more extensively than I have, but what I've studied indicates that there is some predictive value in the interception margin, but that the fumble margin is essentially random. I even recall MT having some interesting quotes from defensive coordinators saying as much.

Several years ago, I ran a ton of regressions to see what statistics best predicted playoff success. Turnover margin was not significant.

Turnovers explain the past. But as far as I know they do not predict the future.

That's interesting, and I don't disagree. I don't think INT ratios are that consistent from year to year, and fumble ones are even less. On the other hand, Tony Banks and Kerry Collins always fumble, while Jerome Bettis and Curtis Martin never do. And some coaching styles (Herm Edwards) lead to strong positive turnover margins, while others (Mike Martz) don't seem to care at all about the statistic.

Of course, in a one game sample (i.e., a playoff game) most of this goes out the window anyway.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Or is this just a Jets fan trying to reach for a reason not to like the Patriots in the postseason?

If I was trying to look for reasons not to like the Pats this post-season, I'd start out with evidence a whole lot more convincing than turnover margin.

 

[PMENFAN]

Look at the TO margin over that last quarter of the season, or even 6 games, to get a more accurate indicator. NE had so many injuries early that they had a whole new secondary learning the system during the year, not allowing for aggressiveness. They've got the system down now, and the aggression has led to a turnaround in turnovers of late. But, it is a concern. As a Pats fan, we're accustomed to seeing a lot of turnovers, and they didn't come until late.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Look at the TO margin over that last quarter of the season, or even 6 games, to get a more accurate indicator. NE had so many injuries early that they had a whole new secondary learning the system during the year, not allowing for aggressiveness. They've got the system down now, and the aggression has led to a turnaround in turnovers of late.

But, it is a concern. As a Pats fan, we're accustomed to seeing a lot of turnovers, and they didn't come until late.

Care to get those numbers for me?Although generally the teams that win it all are the ones that play great all season, not in the final four weeks.

 

[There it is]

I did a study years ago where i took away the points off turn overs. The t/o had to be the direct cause for the score to have the points taken away.Any way I found out that turn overs determined the outcome of more games than you would think.In a straight up game w/no t/o's the final score was mostly a 3 to 7 point decision.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here are the Pythagorean winning percentages for each of the playoff teams. You can read here for more info on this.

IND	0.796SEA	0.771DEN	0.733CAR	0.726PIT	0.726NYG	0.668JAC	0.668CHI	0.645WAS	0.618CIN	0.608NEP	0.567TBB	0.554

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here are the Pythagorean numbers for the last 20 SB Champions:

2004	0.7742003	0.7112002	0.7942001	0.6762000	0.8411999	0.8631998	0.7591997	0.7651996	0.8631995	0.7221994	0.7801993	0.7641992	0.7751991	0.8621990	0.7491989	0.7901988	0.6311987	0.6631986	0.7451986	0.878AVG  0.770

15 of the 20 SB winners had a winning percentage of greater than 74%. This is somewhat noteworthy, as only two teams -- the Colts and Seahawks -- fit that discription this year. Only one team, the 2001 Patriots, in the last 16 years had a PWin% of under .700; that only adds the Broncos, Panthers and Steelers.I liked the Bears a lot, but I think I need to re-visit any prediction on them: The 1990 Giants (335 PF) and the 2000 Ravens (330 PF) were the lowest scoring SB winners over this period. I don't care how good that Bears D is, scoring 260 points and winning the SB seems like a longshot.On the flip side, only the 98 Broncos (309 PA) allowed 300 points in a season, and that's somewhat misleading: they were a great team that allowed a ton of meaningless points late in games. Still, that would seem to rule out the Bengals (350 PA), the Patriots (338 PA) and the Giants (314 PA).

 

[Pat Patriot]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?

So NE didn't do well in turnover margain yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that.

Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margain is important and most playoff teams do well in that area.

Sorry FlaVVed. I wasn't aware that NE was the only team with a negative differential, or how strong the Jaguars were. Personally I expected the Pats to cream the Jags (and I still do), but this is at least making me re-think that game a little bit more.I started looking at these numbers because I think the other three games are really coin flips; these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Maybe you should look at it as just another factor as to why NE could be a factor in the playoffs. They bucked the turnover trend yet are still in the playoffs.I'm not a NE fan but admire what they do.

I don't think NE would have made the playoffs in any other division this year. They went 10-5 when it counted...Beating the hapless AFC East 5 times

Beating the Falcons, a medicore NFC team, without Vick

Beating the 4-12 Raiders at home

Beating the 3-13 Saints at home

Beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh

Beating the Bucs at home

That Bucs win was tremendously impressive, but it can only count for so much. The Steelers win was also a big one, but it was all the way back in week three. Now let's look at their losses

Lost to the Colts

Lost @Denver

Lost vs. San Diego

Lost @KC

Lost @Carolina

The Panthers, Chargers and Chiefs were inconsistent this year, so it's certainly possible that NE got them on their best day. And there's nothing to feel bad about when you lose to the Colts or the Broncos. There's no doubt that the other three division champs outplayed the Pats this year, and the Chiefs/Chargers/Steelers/Jaguars/Patriots all seemed about even this year to me. (The Steelers played better when Big Ben was in, but they did lose to the Pats). But NE can thank playing in the AFC East more than anything else for their playoff berth this weekend.

I expect them to beat up on the Jags, and then have a very difficult time in round 2.

Your analysis is laughable. How is the AFC East any different than the NFC North or NFC West? The AFC East consisted of a division winning playoff team, a 9-7 team and 2 dregs. Are the Bills and Jets worse than the Packers and Lions? Worse than the 49ers and Cardinals?You act as if their 5-1 record in the East doesnt count. They dominated the Jets TWICE. They crushed the Bills once while beating them a second time and split with an improving and very solid Dolphins team (playing backups in the 2nd matchup).

When the Pats BLEW out the Bills on the road, beat the Jets TWICE and won at Miami (Dolphins were 5-3 at home), you dont think they would have beat a great number of teams in the NFL on those days?

The Pats played most of their division games late in the year when they were getting healthy and KICKED ###. Its not like they beat up on the weak east early to run up a great record. They played the cream of the crop early in the year when they were struggling and held together with a 4-4 record.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?

So NE didn't do well in turnover margain yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that.

Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margain is important and most playoff teams do well in that area.

Sorry FlaVVed. I wasn't aware that NE was the only team with a negative differential, or how strong the Jaguars were. Personally I expected the Pats to cream the Jags (and I still do), but this is at least making me re-think that game a little bit more.I started looking at these numbers because I think the other three games are really coin flips; these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Maybe you should look at it as just another factor as to why NE could be a factor in the playoffs. They bucked the turnover trend yet are still in the playoffs.I'm not a NE fan but admire what they do.

I don't think NE would have made the playoffs in any other division this year. They went 10-5 when it counted...Beating the hapless AFC East 5 times

Beating the Falcons, a medicore NFC team, without Vick

Beating the 4-12 Raiders at home

Beating the 3-13 Saints at home

Beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh

Beating the Bucs at home

That Bucs win was tremendously impressive, but it can only count for so much. The Steelers win was also a big one, but it was all the way back in week three. Now let's look at their losses

Lost to the Colts

Lost @Denver

Lost vs. San Diego

Lost @KC

Lost @Carolina

The Panthers, Chargers and Chiefs were inconsistent this year, so it's certainly possible that NE got them on their best day. And there's nothing to feel bad about when you lose to the Colts or the Broncos. There's no doubt that the other three division champs outplayed the Pats this year, and the Chiefs/Chargers/Steelers/Jaguars/Patriots all seemed about even this year to me. (The Steelers played better when Big Ben was in, but they did lose to the Pats). But NE can thank playing in the AFC East more than anything else for their playoff berth this weekend.

I expect them to beat up on the Jags, and then have a very difficult time in round 2.

Your analysis is laughable. How is the AFC East any different than the NFC North or NFC West? The AFC East consisted of a division winning playoff team, a 9-7 team and 2 dregs. Are the Bills and Jets worse than the Packers and Lions? Worse than the 49ers and Cardinals?You act as if their 5-1 record in the East doesnt count. They dominated the Jets TWICE. They crushed the Bills once while beating them a second time and split with an improving and very solid Dolphins team (playing backups in the 2nd matchup).

When the Pats BLEW out the Bills on the road, beat the Jets TWICE and won at Miami (Dolphins were 5-3 at home), you dont think they would have beat a great number of teams in the NFL on those days?

The Pats played most of their division games late in the year when they were getting healthy and KICKED ###. Its not like they beat up on the weak east early to run up a great record. They played the cream of the crop early in the year when they were struggling and held together with a 4-4 record.

That's cool Pat. I know that you pull hard for your team. Personally, I don't think NE was better than either KC or SD this year -- had either of those teams been in the AFC East and NE in the West, the Chargers or Chiefs would be in the playoffs and the Patriots would be at home. (For that matter, I don't think the Jaguars are any better either; they weren't better than KC or SD.)Here's what persuades me that KC and SD are better than NE:

1) NE scored the least amount of points of the three teams

NE: 379

SD: 418

KC: 403

2) NE allowed the most amount of points of the three teams

NE: 338

SD: 312

KC: 325

3) Yardage differential

NE: 551

SD: 862

KC: 1147

4) Turnover margin

NE: -6

SD: -8

KC: +8

5) Strength of Schedule

NE: .508

SD: .559

KC: .504

6) Strength of Victory (SOS for teams they defeated)

NE: .400

SD: .500

KC: .475

NE fans have more to be happy about than any team in the NFL. They've had an amazing run, and they've made the playoffs again this year and even host a home game. But there were two teams in the AFC that missed the playoffs that outplayed them this year. The Chargers point differential and yardage differential were strongly in their favor despite a much harder schedule. The Chiefs point differential and yardage differential were strongly in their favor with a similar schedule, and they had a much better turnover margin.

There's nothing to be ashamed when you say the Chiefs and Chargers were better than the Pats this year. Any objective look at the season will tell you so. And both the Chargers and Chiefs dominate NE by a combined 34 points this year.

 

[PMENFAN]

Week 13-17+4Not overly impressive, and their starters didn't play one game, but far better than they were most of the season. And I disagree that the team who plays great all season gets to the SB. NE got there, and won, after being 4-4 3 years ago. Carolina got to the SB, and gave the Pats a great game just 2 years ago, after a slow start. I'm a Pats fan, adn I believe they'll win, and I'll believe it until they lose. If they just played bad at the beginning, I would see the naysayers point. But, they played bad because they didn't have their 2 prime receivers, or either of their top 2 RB's, or their best Dlineman, and their best linebacker healthy for most of the season. These guys are healthy now, adn it shows. Also in the secondary we had new starters week in and out. Of the 8 Dbacks on the opening day roster, 5 were on IR by week 8, with 3 of them at the SS position. It took a bit to get these guys up to speed, and their play was markedly improved. We're about 10 hours from the rubber hitting the road. How do they do against a 12-4 team? Even if that team has (I believe) 9 victories against losing franchises? But, so does Indi.

 

[PMENFAN]

That's cool Pat. I know that you pull hard for your team. Personally, I don't think NE was better than either KC or SD this year -- had either of those teams been in the AFC East and NE in the West, the Chargers or Chiefs would be in the playoffs and the Patriots would be at home. (For that matter, I don't think the Jaguars are any better either; they weren't better than KC or SD.)

So, explain to me how with a playoff spot on the line SD gets POUNDED at home by the 'fins? I mean if the AFC east is such a weak division? The Jets lost their 2 top QB's, their center, their next best lineman, and their RB (who when he played had a bum knee). And the Bills were just bad this year, yet managed to pound cinci in week 16, or the same part of the season where NE beat Buffalo, but Buffalo is a bad team. They're all NFL teams, and SD and KC aren't out of the playoffs because of their division games. They're out becasue they laid eggs against teams they were 'better' than. Both beat NE when they played in the season, but because they didn't make the playoffs, either of them, there will be no rematch. NE was clearly the best team in their division, and that's a qualifier. Heck, w/ Indi's or J'villes schedule (division switch), NE might have won 13 games. You never know. But, teams do know that if they win their division they get a playoff spot. The West wasn't unwinnable. KC and SD just laid too many eggs to win it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That's cool Pat. I know that you pull hard for your team. Personally, I don't think NE was better than either KC or SD this year -- had either of those teams been in the AFC East and NE in the West, the Chargers or Chiefs would be in the playoffs and the Patriots would be at home. (For that matter, I don't think the Jaguars are any better either; they weren't better than KC or SD.)

So, explain to me how with a playoff spot on the line SD gets POUNDED at home by the 'fins? I mean if the AFC east is such a weak division? The Jets lost their 2 top QB's, their center, their next best lineman, and their RB (who when he played had a bum knee). And the Bills were just bad this year, yet managed to pound cinci in week 16, or the same part of the season where NE beat Buffalo, but Buffalo is a bad team. They're all NFL teams, and SD and KC aren't out of the playoffs because of their division games. They're out becasue they laid eggs against teams they were 'better' than. Both beat NE when they played in the season, but because they didn't make the playoffs, either of them, there will be no rematch. NE was clearly the best team in their division, and that's a qualifier. Heck, w/ Indi's or J'villes schedule (division switch), NE might have won 13 games. You never know. But, teams do know that if they win their division they get a playoff spot. The West wasn't unwinnable. KC and SD just laid too many eggs to win it.

Absolutely, KC and SD have no one to blame but themselves. But that doesn't mean an objective analysis of the two teams can't show than either is better than NE. They all ended with very similar records, but I was more impressed with what SD and KC did than what NE did. It's cool if you disagree. I understand the thing with the Pats since they've been dominant in years past, but I don't put a ton of stock into things like that.Eventually, all things come to an end. Let's look at a hypothetical team:

They won 3 out of 4 SBs. The following year they went 10-6, barely winning their division. Clearly they weren't the dominant team of year's past: they outscored their opponents by just 36 points.

But they had 9 Pro Bowlers, and had won 4 of their last 5 and their last three meaningful games of the season. They also had playoff experience, and they're still the best until someone beats them.

But just because they got hot and have won three SBs doesn't mean they're going to do it again in the playoffs. The 1996 Cowboys won their first playoff game at home, then lost 26-17 to the Panthers in Carolina. I'd expect a similar fate to hit NE.

Look at the 2002 Lakers. They had won three straight championships, averaging 60 wins per season. In 2002, they won 50 games. They won their first playoff series, and everyone thought they would win it all again. But then they got spanked by the better team the next round.

If NE wins the Super Bowl this season, they'll have been the worst regular season team to win the SB -- by far -- in the last 20 years (maybe more, I just haven't gone back that far.

I understand Patriots love and being a fan and if I rooted for NE, I'd absolutely believe they would win it all this year. But to compare this team to the championship teams is an outright slap in the face to the 2003 and especially the 2004 teams.

 

[redsoxfan]

15 of the 20 SB winners had a winning percentage of greater than 74%. This is somewhat noteworthy, as only two teams -- the Colts and Seahawks -- fit that discription this year. Only one team, the 2001 Patriots, in the last 16 years had a PWin% of under .700; that only adds the Broncos, Panthers and Steelers.

I liked the Bears a lot, but I think I need to re-visit any prediction on them: The 1990 Giants (335 PF) and the 2000 Ravens (330 PF) were the lowest scoring SB winners over this period. I don't care how good that Bears D is, scoring 260 points and winning the SB seems like a longshot.

On the flip side, only the 98 Broncos (309 PA) allowed 300 points in a season, and that's somewhat misleading: they were a great team that allowed a ton of meaningless points late in games. Still, that would seem to rule out the Bengals (350 PA), the Patriots (338 PA) and the Giants (314 PA).

One flaw with the Pythagorean numbers for this year - MANY of the playoff teams this year had their playoff seedings locked up with anywhere from 1 to 3 weeks to go and they rested players during those weeks - in many cases giving up meaningless wins in the process. However, those "meaningless" games still influence the Pythagorean numbers.

 

[BGP]

I've always used turnovers as a factor in how I look at clubs. QBs throwing too many INTs and defenses making a lot of INTs are pretty important.

 

[BGP]

I did a study years ago where i took away the points off turn overs. The t/o had to be the direct cause for the score to have the points taken away.

Any way I found out that turn overs determined the outcome of more games than you would think.

In a straight up game w/no t/o's the final score was mostly a 3 to 7 point decision.

I strongly agree with this.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Here is something I think we can all agree on...if New England somehow manages to win the Super Bowl this year, I don't see any way Bill Belichick doesn't go down as the greatest coach in modern times not just in football, but in any sport.

 

[BGP]

Here are the Pythagorean numbers for the last 20 SB Champions:

2004 0.7742003 0.7112002 0.7942001 0.6762000 0.8411999 0.8631998 0.7591997 0.7651996 0.8631995 0.7221994 0.7801993 0.7641992 0.7751991 0.8621990 0.7491989 0.7901988 0.6311987 0.6631986 0.7451986 0.878AVG 0.77015 of the 20 SB winners had a winning percentage of greater than 74%. This is somewhat noteworthy, as only two teams -- the Colts and Seahawks -- fit that discription this year. Only one team, the 2001 Patriots, in the last 16 years had a PWin% of under .700; that only adds the Broncos, Panthers and Steelers.I liked the Bears a lot, but I think I need to re-visit any prediction on them: The 1990 Giants (335 PF) and the 2000 Ravens (330 PF) were the lowest scoring SB winners over this period. I don't care how good that Bears D is, scoring 260 points and winning the SB seems like a longshot.

On the flip side, only the 98 Broncos (309 PA) allowed 300 points in a season, and that's somewhat misleading: they were a great team that allowed a ton of meaningless points late in games. Still, that would seem to rule out the Bengals (350 PA), the Patriots (338 PA) and the Giants (314 PA).

Also realize that the team with the superior point differential has won something like 13 of the last 15 super bowls. And the only two exceptions were when Belichick beat that number.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Also realize that the team with the superior point differential has won something like 13 of the last 15 super bowls. And the only two exceptions were when Belichick beat that number.

Also realize that there is no chance Belichick faces anyone as clueless at game management as Mike Martz in this year's Super Bowl, so if he manages to pull that off again, it would be a greater achievement than beating the Rams was back in '01.

 

[packersfan]

I don't think NE would have made the playoffs in any other division this year.

They would've won the NFC North. They're a better team than the Bears.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Once again someone has to ask Chase what is the point of this thread?

So NE didn't do well in turnover margain yet they made the playoffs? I don' think anyone is surprised at that.

Anyone that follows football knows that turnover margain is important and most playoff teams do well in that area.

Sorry FlaVVed. I wasn't aware that NE was the only team with a negative differential, or how strong the Jaguars were. Personally I expected the Pats to cream the Jags (and I still do), but this is at least making me re-think that game a little bit more.I started looking at these numbers because I think the other three games are really coin flips; these numbers would favor picking Cincy, Tampa and the Giants.

Maybe you should look at it as just another factor as to why NE could be a factor in the playoffs. They bucked the turnover trend yet are still in the playoffs.I'm not a NE fan but admire what they do.

I don't think NE would have made the playoffs in any other division this year. They went 10-5 when it counted...Beating the hapless AFC East 5 times

Beating the Falcons, a medicore NFC team, without Vick

Beating the 4-12 Raiders at home

Beating the 3-13 Saints at home

Beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh

Beating the Bucs at home

That Bucs win was tremendously impressive, but it can only count for so much. The Steelers win was also a big one, but it was all the way back in week three. Now let's look at their losses

Lost to the Colts

Lost @Denver

Lost vs. San Diego

Lost @KC

Lost @Carolina

The Panthers, Chargers and Chiefs were inconsistent this year, so it's certainly possible that NE got them on their best day. And there's nothing to feel bad about when you lose to the Colts or the Broncos. There's no doubt that the other three division champs outplayed the Pats this year, and the Chiefs/Chargers/Steelers/Jaguars/Patriots all seemed about even this year to me. (The Steelers played better when Big Ben was in, but they did lose to the Pats). But NE can thank playing in the AFC East more than anything else for their playoff berth this weekend.

I expect them to beat up on the Jags, and then have a very difficult time in round 2.

Your analysis is laughable. How is the AFC East any different than the NFC North or NFC West? The AFC East consisted of a division winning playoff team, a 9-7 team and 2 dregs. Are the Bills and Jets worse than the Packers and Lions? Worse than the 49ers and Cardinals?You act as if their 5-1 record in the East doesnt count. They dominated the Jets TWICE. They crushed the Bills once while beating them a second time and split with an improving and very solid Dolphins team (playing backups in the 2nd matchup).

When the Pats BLEW out the Bills on the road, beat the Jets TWICE and won at Miami (Dolphins were 5-3 at home), you dont think they would have beat a great number of teams in the NFL on those days?

The Pats played most of their division games late in the year when they were getting healthy and KICKED ###. Its not like they beat up on the weak east early to run up a great record. They played the cream of the crop early in the year when they were struggling and held together with a 4-4 record.

That's cool Pat. I know that you pull hard for your team. Personally, I don't think NE was better than either KC or SD this year -- had either of those teams been in the AFC East and NE in the West, the Chargers or Chiefs would be in the playoffs and the Patriots would be at home. (For that matter, I don't think the Jaguars are any better either; they weren't better than KC or SD.)Here's what persuades me that KC and SD are better than NE:

1) NE scored the least amount of points of the three teams

NE: 379

SD: 418

KC: 403

2) NE allowed the most amount of points of the three teams

NE: 338

SD: 312

KC: 325

3) Yardage differential

NE: 551

SD: 862

KC: 1147

4) Turnover margin

NE: -6

SD: -8

KC: +8

5) Strength of Schedule

NE: .508

SD: .559

KC: .504

6) Strength of Victory (SOS for teams they defeated)

NE: .400

SD: .500

KC: .475

NE fans have more to be happy about than any team in the NFL. They've had an amazing run, and they've made the playoffs again this year and even host a home game. But there were two teams in the AFC that missed the playoffs that outplayed them this year. The Chargers point differential and yardage differential were strongly in their favor despite a much harder schedule. The Chiefs point differential and yardage differential were strongly in their favor with a similar schedule, and they had a much better turnover margin.

There's nothing to be ashamed when you say the Chiefs and Chargers were better than the Pats this year. Any objective look at the season will tell you so. And both the Chargers and Chiefs dominate NE by a combined 34 points this year.

Chase,Why didnt you start a new thread with this post because this is a completely different argument that you are making here. I actually agree that KC and SD were better than NE this year (KC and SD dominated the Pats). However, you said that NE would not have made the playoffs in any other division. I thought you meant in the whole NFL but even if you meant the AFC, I think you are wrong. If the Pats were in the AFC North instead of Pitt or Cincy, they would have split with Pitt or Cincy and beat up on Baltimore and Cleveland (same 5-1 div. record). If they were in the AFC South instead of Jax or Indy they would split with Indy or Jax and beat up on Tennessee and Houston (same 5-1 division record). If the Pats were in the AFC West, they probably wouldnt have made the playoffs seeing as they lost to Denver, SD and KC while beating Oakland.

Although point and yardage differential are useful stats, they dont tell the whole story. SD BLEW teams out and lost the close ones. They had a record of 9-7 because of it. That doesnt necessarily mean they are a more worthy playoff team. I kept hearing all year that SD was the best team this and that who wont make the playoffs. Well, they lost too many games so they arent the best anything, they are sitting home.

 

[BGP]

The trouble with using points scored and allowed with Bill Belichick clubs is that he is the only modern coach that has defied those types of numbers in the big games.

 

[Pat Patriot]

That's cool Pat. I know that you pull hard for your team. Personally, I don't think NE was better than either KC or SD this year -- had either of those teams been in the AFC East and NE in the West, the Chargers or Chiefs would be in the playoffs and the Patriots would be at home. (For that matter, I don't think the Jaguars are any better either; they weren't better than KC or SD.)

So, explain to me how with a playoff spot on the line SD gets POUNDED at home by the 'fins? I mean if the AFC east is such a weak division? The Jets lost their 2 top QB's, their center, their next best lineman, and their RB (who when he played had a bum knee). And the Bills were just bad this year, yet managed to pound cinci in week 16, or the same part of the season where NE beat Buffalo, but Buffalo is a bad team. They're all NFL teams, and SD and KC aren't out of the playoffs because of their division games. They're out becasue they laid eggs against teams they were 'better' than. Both beat NE when they played in the season, but because they didn't make the playoffs, either of them, there will be no rematch. NE was clearly the best team in their division, and that's a qualifier. Heck, w/ Indi's or J'villes schedule (division switch), NE might have won 13 games. You never know. But, teams do know that if they win their division they get a playoff spot. The West wasn't unwinnable. KC and SD just laid too many eggs to win it.

Absolutely, KC and SD have no one to blame but themselves. But that doesn't mean an objective analysis of the two teams can't show than either is better than NE. They all ended with very similar records, but I was more impressed with what SD and KC did than what NE did. It's cool if you disagree. I understand the thing with the Pats since they've been dominant in years past, but I don't put a ton of stock into things like that.Eventually, all things come to an end. Let's look at a hypothetical team:

They won 3 out of 4 SBs. The following year they went 10-6, barely winning their division. Clearly they weren't the dominant team of year's past: they outscored their opponents by just 36 points.

But they had 9 Pro Bowlers, and had won 4 of their last 5 and their last three meaningful games of the season. They also had playoff experience, and they're still the best until someone beats them.

But just because they got hot and have won three SBs doesn't mean they're going to do it again in the playoffs. The 1996 Cowboys won their first playoff game at home, then lost 26-17 to the Panthers in Carolina. I'd expect a similar fate to hit NE.

Look at the 2002 Lakers. They had won three straight championships, averaging 60 wins per season. In 2002, they won 50 games. They won their first playoff series, and everyone thought they would win it all again. But then they got spanked by the better team the next round.

If NE wins the Super Bowl this season, they'll have been the worst regular season team to win the SB -- by far -- in the last 20 years (maybe more, I just haven't gone back that far.

I understand Patriots love and being a fan and if I rooted for NE, I'd absolutely believe they would win it all this year. But to compare this team to the championship teams is an outright slap in the face to the 2003 and especially the 2004 teams.

The Pats pretty much clinched the Division with 4 games remaining in the season. Is that barely winning the division? They went 5-0 in the division until giving away the last game of the year to a hot Miami team.They were 3-1 against the tough NFC South and 1-3 against the tough AFC West and were never really in the games they lost.

It remains to be seen whether the Pats can win a title without Rodney Harrison. He has been their defensive MVP for 2 years running. He is the only one the Pats are now missing.

I have said all along that I dont expect the Pats to make it to the Super Bowl this year. I just WANT the game against Indy. That is why I will be rooting for Cincy this weekend. I dont want Denver next round, I want Indy. I have heard too much about Indy not being able to beat NE in Foxboro because of the conditions and snow and cold. Well Indy has the home field this year and I want the Pats to prove that their is more to them beating Indy the last couple of years than weather.

The Pats beat Indy 2 years ago in Indy (last time they played there) in a classic game. I just want to see what would happen this year in Indy.

 

[BGP]

Also realize that the team with the superior point differential has won something like 13 of the last 15 super bowls. And the only two exceptions were when Belichick beat that number.

Also realize that there is no chance Belichick faces anyone as clueless at game management as Mike Martz in this year's Super Bowl, so if he manages to pull that off again, it would be a greater achievement than beating the Rams was back in '01.

But that's not the only time he beat that number. He also did it as DC of the Giants in the 1990 games vs the Bills. And his gameplan of that one hangs in the HOF.

 

[BGP]

The biggest shock in recent years, to me, was the 2003 Panthers. They didn't look good statistically at all. Yet they:1. Beat the Rams on the road.2. Beat the Eagles, who were a very strong team that year, on the road.3. Nearly beat Belichick in the Super Bowl.But since then, the Panthers have struggled, making me think it was more luck than skill.

 

[Mr.Happy]

Look at the TO margin over that last quarter of the season, or even 6 games, to get a more accurate indicator.  NE had so many injuries early that they had a whole new secondary learning the system during the year, not allowing for aggressiveness.  They've got the system down now, and the aggression has led to a turnaround in turnovers of late. 

But, it is a concern.  As a Pats fan, we're accustomed to seeing a lot of turnovers, and they didn't come until late.

Care to get those numbers for me?Although generally the teams that win it all are the ones that play great all season, not in the final four weeks.

Alright time to go Capella on your ###.Your analysis is absolutely flawed. Example 1, is that teams the finish well, do well. The Ravens were near .500 halfway into the season with Tony Banks at QB, and finished strong and won the super bowl. The Patriots were 5-5 at one point, before finishing strong and winning the Super Bowl. The Raiders the next year were 4-4, before finishing strong and winning the Super Bowl. The Patriots were 2-2 to start the year, before finishing strong and winning the Super Bowl.

The early part of the season needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Players injuried then my be healthy now. The defense might have changed. The offense might have changed. New players became starters.

Also, you have to realize that the Patriots are one of those strange teams that doesn't fit typical statistics. Their defense is designed to let the other team's offense have a long time, to give itself more changes for a turnover and to prevent the big play.

Also, the Patriots were one of the MOST injured teams most of this season, and has Monte Beisel and Chad Brown starting at linebacker. They got healthy, and put Vrabel and Bruschi inside and the defense has been rock solid ever since.

Dillon is healthy now, Faulk is healthy now, the secondary is decent, and after last season, that may be good enough.

Just a Jet fan looking to bring down the big dog.

 

[Mr.Happy]

Also, in reference to Belichick not having to face Mike Martz in the bowl......He took down Andy Reid, argueably the second best coach in the game. And took down Dungy too.With that said, I think this is the Colts year. Just looking back on what we have, I will be shocked if they don't win it all. They have the karma, and they have the talent and home field advantage.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

That's cool Pat. I know that you pull hard for your team. Personally, I don't think NE was better than either KC or SD this year -- had either of those teams been in the AFC East and NE in the West, the Chargers or Chiefs would be in the playoffs and the Patriots would be at home. (For that matter, I don't think the Jaguars are any better either; they weren't better than KC or SD.)

So, explain to me how with a playoff spot on the line SD gets POUNDED at home by the 'fins? I mean if the AFC east is such a weak division? The Jets lost their 2 top QB's, their center, their next best lineman, and their RB (who when he played had a bum knee). And the Bills were just bad this year, yet managed to pound cinci in week 16, or the same part of the season where NE beat Buffalo, but Buffalo is a bad team. They're all NFL teams, and SD and KC aren't out of the playoffs because of their division games. They're out becasue they laid eggs against teams they were 'better' than. Both beat NE when they played in the season, but because they didn't make the playoffs, either of them, there will be no rematch. NE was clearly the best team in their division, and that's a qualifier. Heck, w/ Indi's or J'villes schedule (division switch), NE might have won 13 games. You never know. But, teams do know that if they win their division they get a playoff spot. The West wasn't unwinnable. KC and SD just laid too many eggs to win it.

Absolutely, KC and SD have no one to blame but themselves. But that doesn't mean an objective analysis of the two teams can't show than either is better than NE. They all ended with very similar records, but I was more impressed with what SD and KC did than what NE did. It's cool if you disagree. I understand the thing with the Pats since they've been dominant in years past, but I don't put a ton of stock into things like that.Eventually, all things come to an end. Let's look at a hypothetical team:

They won 3 out of 4 SBs. The following year they went 10-6, barely winning their division. Clearly they weren't the dominant team of year's past: they outscored their opponents by just 36 points.

But they had 9 Pro Bowlers, and had won 4 of their last 5 and their last three meaningful games of the season. They also had playoff experience, and they're still the best until someone beats them.

But just because they got hot and have won three SBs doesn't mean they're going to do it again in the playoffs. The 1996 Cowboys won their first playoff game at home, then lost 26-17 to the Panthers in Carolina. I'd expect a similar fate to hit NE.

Look at the 2002 Lakers. They had won three straight championships, averaging 60 wins per season. In 2002, they won 50 games. They won their first playoff series, and everyone thought they would win it all again. But then they got spanked by the better team the next round.

If NE wins the Super Bowl this season, they'll have been the worst regular season team to win the SB -- by far -- in the last 20 years (maybe more, I just haven't gone back that far.

I understand Patriots love and being a fan and if I rooted for NE, I'd absolutely believe they would win it all this year. But to compare this team to the championship teams is an outright slap in the face to the 2003 and especially the 2004 teams.

Chase, there is no disputing that KC & SD were both better than the Patriots on the days they played each other. I also agree with you that NE's turnover statistic is a true negative indicator for their chances this year. But some of your reasoning is kind of silly.You are putting way, way too much stock in NE having 6 losses and believing that means they can't win the SB. Do you doubt for a moment that NE wouldn't have beaten Miami at home if it had been for the division title? You do know NE sat a ton of people and then pulled the ones they did start after only a few series.

Your claim that just because NE got "hot" and won 3 super bowls doesn't mean their going to do it again this year is rather odd. I have heard the term "hot" applied to a string of games but over the course of 3 or four years?

I agree that the 2005 version of Patriots appear to be the weakest of their recent SB winners and may very well lose to either Indy or Den. But they are similar to the 01 team in that they struggled early in the season and put things together at the end. NE is obvioulsy not as strong as they have been in the past couple of years but the core group is still there and they are a much better team now than they were 2 months ago and IMO they are MUCH better than you believe they are.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Look at the TO margin over that last quarter of the season, or even 6 games, to get a more accurate indicator.  NE had so many injuries early that they had a whole new secondary learning the system during the year, not allowing for aggressiveness.  They've got the system down now, and the aggression has led to a turnaround in turnovers of late. 

But, it is a concern.  As a Pats fan, we're accustomed to seeing a lot of turnovers, and they didn't come until late.

Care to get those numbers for me?Although generally the teams that win it all are the ones that play great all season, not in the final four weeks.

Alright time to go Capella on your ###.Your analysis is absolutely flawed. Example 1, is that teams the finish well, do well. The Ravens were near .500 halfway into the season with Tony Banks at QB, and finished strong and won the super bowl. The Patriots were 5-5 at one point, before finishing strong and winning the Super Bowl. The Raiders the next year were 4-4, before finishing strong and winning the Super Bowl. The Patriots were 2-2 to start the year, before finishing strong and winning the Super Bowl.

The early part of the season needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Players injuried then my be healthy now. The defense might have changed. The offense might have changed. New players became starters.

Also, you have to realize that the Patriots are one of those strange teams that doesn't fit typical statistics. Their defense is designed to let the other team's offense have a long time, to give itself more changes for a turnover and to prevent the big play.

Also, the Patriots were one of the MOST injured teams most of this season, and has Monte Beisel and Chad Brown starting at linebacker. They got healthy, and put Vrabel and Bruschi inside and the defense has been rock solid ever since.

Dillon is healthy now, Faulk is healthy now, the secondary is decent, and after last season, that may be good enough.

Just a Jet fan looking to bring down the big dog.

 

[Chase Stuart]

There's been some good discussion in here. For all the talk of how the Patriots have improved dramatically as the season went along (and I don't disagree with it), how many SB winning teams follow that mold? SB champions are generally teams that play well all year. Someone mentioned that 2002 Raiders, but that team had 1,211 more yards than they allowed; this year's Pats have less than half of that. I maintain that if NE wins the SB, they will have had one of the weakest regular season resumes of any team to ever do it.That being said, I expect them to win tonight. For the past week I thought they'd blow out the Jags, with Jacksonville having about a 10% chance to win. Belichick and Brady are too good, the weather is too cold, the Pats are improving and the Jaguars haven't beaten a good team in forever.But if Jacksonville doesn't turn the ball over tonight, they'll be tough to beat. Sure Byron Leftwich might be rusty, and throw an INT to Bruschi o the first play. But based on NE being horrible at forcing TOs and the Jags being excellent at preventing them, I am starting to think this game goes down to the wire.13-10 NE.

 

[Chase Stuart]

There's been some good discussion in here. For all the talk of how the Patriots have improved dramatically as the season went along (and I don't disagree with it), how many SB winning teams follow that mold? SB champions are generally teams that play well all year. Someone mentioned that 2002 Raiders, but that team had 1,211 more yards than they allowed; this year's Pats have less than half of that. I maintain that if NE wins the SB, they will have had one of the weakest regular season resumes of any team to ever do it.

That being said, I expect them to win tonight. For the past week I thought they'd blow out the Jags, with Jacksonville having about a 10% chance to win. Belichick and Brady are too good, the weather is too cold, the Pats are improving and the Jaguars haven't beaten a good team in forever.

But if Jacksonville doesn't turn the ball over tonight, they'll be tough to beat. Sure Byron Leftwich might be rusty, and throw an INT to Bruschi o the first play. But based on NE being horrible at forcing TOs and the Jags being excellent at preventing them, I am starting to think this game goes down to the wire.

13-10 NE.

Boy did NE come to play tonight. I thought the Jaguars were well prepared and excuted very well most of the game, but the Patriots one upped them in just about every area. The Pats made all the key plays tonight, and if they play like this again next round they'll be real tough to beat.

 

[Mr.Happy]

bump

 

[jwvdcw]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

I guess this point got ignored. 28-3- That probably won't get ignored as much.

 

[Chase Stuart]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

I guess this point got ignored. 28-3- That probably won't get ignored as much.

Do you have anything to back this point up?

 

[Mr.Happy]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

I guess this point got ignored. 28-3- That probably won't get ignored as much.

Do you have anything to back this point up?

Yes he does. Teams that win the turnover battle win the game 70% of the time. Which shows that teams that get turnovers, usually win the football games.A team that can win, even without those conditions, is probably a VERY solid football team to be able to overcome that deficiency.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

I guess this point got ignored. 28-3- That probably won't get ignored as much.

Do you have anything to back this point up?

Yes he does. Teams that win the turnover battle win the game 70% of the time. Which shows that teams that get turnovers, usually win the football games.A team that can win, even without those conditions, is probably a VERY solid football team to be able to overcome that deficiency.

 

[Chase Stuart]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

I guess this point got ignored. 28-3- That probably won't get ignored as much.

Do you have anything to back this point up?

Yes he does. Teams that win the turnover battle win the game 70% of the time. Which shows that teams that get turnovers, usually win the football games.A team that can win, even without those conditions, is probably a VERY solid football team to be able to overcome that deficiency.

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

I guess this point got ignored. 28-3- That probably won't get ignored as much.

Do you have anything to back this point up?

Yes he does. Teams that win the turnover battle win the game 70% of the time. Which shows that teams that get turnovers, usually win the football games.A team that can win, even without those conditions, is probably a VERY solid football team to be able to overcome that deficiency.

That's still subjective and doesn't back up your point. Anyone can say white and anyone can say black, but you need data to make a convincing point here. I'll start:Check the last 4 Super Bowls.

 

[David Yudkin]

As people grill me all the time on, statistics don't win ballgames, football players do.While I agree, in theory, that the 2005 16 game stats do not make the Pats out to have much chance to win this year, I do not recall a similar situation in season's past.Where are the stats on 2-time defending SB champs suffering massive injuries in the first part of the season all at once after losing their offensive and defensive coordinators?The Patriots are in such a foreign area in terms of previous history that we have no idea what to expect from them. Which other teams could we compare them to? None.They have now won 10 post-season games in a row. No one else has done that.So which data set should we look at . . . this year's REGULAR season numbers, or the Pats POST-SEASON numbers where they have been better than anyone they've faced.So when people say, the stats from 16 games show them to be easy pickings and that turning it around for the last 4 should not mean anything, I am not so sure that's a great conclusion to make.If those last 4 games reflects that the Pats are playing like they did when they won 3 other Super Bowls, that might trump the season-long statistical data.So to point to all the historical data that shows the Pats to have the worst turnover margin or worst points different or Pythagoean numbers is a bit of overkill in my book. Even if they had the best set of numbers, no one else has been able to threepeat, so that's as good a stat to have to absorb than any of the others.No matter what, the Pats are up against the odds to win another SB.

 

[Donnybrook]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

Did the Redskins win today because they got lucky? :waitsforjwvdcw'srant:

 

[bostonfred]

Tom Brady has the best postseason INT/attempt ratio of any QB in NFL history with just three career postseason INTs in over 330 attempts. It's better than 2.5 times as good as the quarterback in third place in that category. Small sample sizes aside, those facts appear to have been a better predictor for tonight's game than Brady's regular season INTass ratio, as the Patriots recovered two turnovers tonight, while giving up 0.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Apropos of this discussion, it's interesting to note that the Pats were charged with 4 fumbles last night, but didn't lose any.

 

[Cookiemonster]

turnovers are largely luck(the random way a football will bounce). That a team can win despite having that bad luck means that they are even stronger than their record would indicate.

Did the Redskins win today because they got lucky? :waitsforjwvdcw'srant:

In fact, yes. How many opportunities did the Bucs have to fall on some of those fumbles too? How about the (lucky) bounce the ball took instead of just being recovered by the Skins where they're offense would have just stalled out again, Taylor scoops it and scores. Let's not forget the TWO pass plays that should have been scores @ the end of the game.I'm not saying Tampa was the better team, but there is always an element of luck involved in winning a game.