NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
I agree with all that, but I do want to correct the misconception among some that it was only NE's last 4 regular games where they really started playing well. NE turned it around at mid season starting with their 9th game. I do not have the stats in front of me but I believe it is from that point on that their run and red zone defense really began to solidify and get better and better with each game.It does seem similar to the 2001 season when so many discounted NE because of how poorly they played in the 1st half of the year but many close observers (mostly NE fans) knew that over the course of the 2nd half of the year their D statistically was as good if not better than any in the league. IMO, as teams go into the playoffs, how a team plays in the second half of the year should carry a lot more weight (more relevant) than what that team did in September & October.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.
Last edited by a moderator: