go show me how many times he has failed? it's not many, he hasn't been in that situation very often which says a lot of him and the greatness of the pats. How come you haven't addressed the SOS #s? In games he has started against us in close/late game situations: 2006: up by 7 w/ 9 mins left leads O on an 8 min drive for chip shot FG. we blocked it but had no time to score. 2006: down 3, get ball at NE 11 w/ 1:08 to play and no TOs, get to just past midfield. 2009: trailing by TD w/ 1:48 to play at NE 10 w/ no TOs. Almost impossible situation. 2011: up 6 w/ 7 mins left, leads 6 min drive and sets up FG. 2012: trailing by 3 w/ 1 1/2 to play and 1 TO, leads FG drive to tie then wins it in OT we've stopped him ONE time in a close/late game situation.
You are correct that they didn't play to win. I already said that. However that isn't "evidence" that they would have won the game. You are seeing two exremes here (1. The Patriots tried to win the game and failed 2. The Patriots didn't try to win, and thus automatically would have won if they tried), and missing the more accurate truth which lies in between (3. The Patriots didn't try to win, but might have come up short even if they had). It is just conjecture on your part to say that Brady would have led a game winning comeback. He is good and everything, but you can't just make that assumption and expect to be taken seriously. You can't assume that any QB would have won a game in the last drive where they had struggled to score previously. Why do you make up these "ifs" and try to pass them off as fact? IF that happened, some people would have speculated that SD might have won, but it would hardly be a universally accepted truth. Plus, there is more room for speculation when there is still an entire half of a football game left to be played. I'm not saying Indy certainly would have won. I'm just saying the information that we have to work with suggests that a Jets loss is the slightly more likely option of the two. To a large extent I agree with you. I think that game was very winnable if the Patriots cared enough to put it all on the line. But you can't make those assumptions and form arguments around them and expect those arguments to be taken seriously. There is no concrete basis to your argument when it relies on that many "what if"s.
Where did I say it was evidence they would have won the game? I said it was evidence they didn't play to win. I showed a similar example everyone says we would have lost to Indy. we trailed by only 5 pts midway through the 3rd. maybe we lose? maybe we win? we don't know. UI gave the SD example b/c it was similar circumstances at a similar time of the game, the game played out and we won. I can make those assumptions b/c it was clear they didn't play to win, I wouldn't even call them assumptions. Just look at what happened, I have little doubt if they wanted to win they would have.
Okay, you have little doubt. That's great, but it certainly isn't the most compelling argument. You provided one example where Brady drove down the field and scored a TD to gain a lead and win the game, and two where he failed to do just that (although time was clearly a factor in both of those instances). Am I missing the part where it is as clear as day? It is the very definition of an assumption, so I'm not sure what else you would call it. Edit: Actually, I was wrong, you didn't even provide a single example where Brady led the Patriots on a game winning TD drive, yet you still act like it is a given that it would have happened.
The only person here looking foolish is the guy that is a blatant hypocrite. None of those are close to the same situations. Den: down 3 points and the ball was on the NE 42 with 2:15 Hou: over 3:00 left in the game. Bal: over 3:00 left in the game. Buf: Dont make me laugh. They had the ball on the Buf 30 when Buf fumbled the kick return. They had it with 1:57 left on the Buf 30. 5 examples that aren't even the same from a 12 year career. Nice job! So how many times has he led them to a win when they were down 7 with 1:47 left with the ball behind the NE 40? Still zero. NE didn't play to win because they took out Brady on 2 drives which is equal to 20%. But the Colts did play to win when they took all of their starters out for 50% of their drives? :lol: You can't make this stuff up. I'm not even arguing that NE played with a 100% desire to win. I think they did want to win that game since they were struggling that year, but when they were down 7 with 1:47 left I don't think they really cared much anymore. The entire argument is from you giving credit to us for the win against the Colts when the entire reason we won was because of Painter being in the game for 50% of the drives and not giving credit to Houston when they faced Brady for 80% of the game. You have little doubt that NE would have won even though Brady and the starters played on all but two drives, but with the Colts who removed all of their starters for 50% and who beat us by 2 scores a couple of weeks later when it mattered...we don't know. :lol: It is one of your many blatant double standards that you have been called out on. I still get a good laugh from them so keep up the good work! :rofl2:
Since no one has commented on this I will. I haven't gone over the numbers myself yet but 109 plus 99 equals 208. If you combine the win loss record of all of opponents it should equal 256 since each NFL team plays 16 games. Your numbers are wrong. I'm not doubting that the correct numbers may favor 2009 but you are not taking into account the fact that we played two teams with great records that didn't care about winning against us. We faced two teams in 2008 that only won 2 games all year. That alone will skew the numbers.
I have addressed the SOS numbers JUNC, you just refuse to read them. I've even posted links to them in the Defense thread. But of course you just continue to ramble on and on and on about nonsense and trying to misdirect. And yes, there are very few examples of the Jets, or any team, shutting down Brady, That's why he's one of the top QB's in the league and probably will be among the top 25 of all time, and probably top 10. 1:10 with a good offense to drive down the field is hard, but he's done it before with no time outs, it's all about hitting the quick out routes since the clock stops. Good QB's can do that you know Regarding the SOS, again, at the end of the 2008 season the end SOS was .568 of all the opposing teams the Jets faced that season records totaling 145-110. at the end of the 2009 Season the combined record of all the teams the Jets faced was 168-168, .500. It's not a hard piece of research Junc. I'll even do it for you again. The 2010 pre season sos which reflects the teams records at the end of 2009. http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/21479/2010-strength-of-schedule The 2009 pre season sos which reflect the teams records at the end of 2008. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/news/story?id=4027503 And yes Junc, it is proper to use the end of season SOS rather than the pre-season SOS...teams change between seasons, a team that was good in the previous year isn't necessarily good in the current year. After all, the 2009 Jets weren't playing the 2008 teams, they were playing the 2009 teams...and that year those teams had a .500 combined record. nice attempt to weasel out and deflect.
I'm just curious, whyizzit,the Genomaniacs buy the company line about...competition...:rofl: ....after Garrard, but they dont buy the company line about how lucky they are to have the opportunity to buy a PSL?
You love double talk, Weasel out and deflect, dont you. You have been arguing this Post season SOS, for at least a half dozen pages. Its Retarded. SOS, pre season is the static representation, of each teams assumed stregnth. If Mevi$ kneecaps, Matt Ryan on a CB blitz, after we play the Falcons, and lose....tell us...what does that do to our post season SOS, when they lose the next 10 games? Its not a static measure, it does not, and cannot take into account what happens ex post facto. In fact it tends to distort it. Its a flawed factoid, like QBR. But hey...I guess whenyour argument is weak to begin with..,,
Even if your argument is correct, and it isn't. the mere fact they HAVE to use that would be a testament to how bad the QB situation is. Sanchez has NEVER been a good QB.
Yawn, first I'm not the one who brought soft schedule vs strong schedule in to the argument, your butt buddy did that thank you very much. Second, show me where a major QB went down after we lost to a good team in either season and we'll modify for that. But you and I both know that didn't happen and in order to try to give your argument any validity you need to throw hypotheticals in to the equation to try to cloud the issue. And it's hilarious you calling QBR a flawed factoid after you had used it for several days to try top show Sanchez was a GOOD Red zone QB and it only became a flawed factoid AFTER it was pointed out to you that he ranked 13th in that regard that year in QBR. Your definition of flawed factoid is anything that doesn't support your argument, even if it's a factoid you've tried to use previously to support your position...at least until it was pointed out he wasn't that good when compared to other QB's. But you do make a valid point regarding the pre-season SOS being static and looking at it's "presumed strength". but you knee cap yourself because those same arguments you use to discredit the post season SOS also applies to the pre-season SOS...silly boy By the way the post season SOS is static, it doesn't change after the season ends.
I provided numerous examples including winning SUPER BOWLS on last minute drives. The guy is BY FAR the best QB of his generation, he hasn't been in a million late game situations but when he has he has come through more often than not in much more difficult circumstances than what he would have had in Houston. Anyway, my point is NE didn't take the game seriously, if they did they would have won. That would be start to finish not just the last drive, if they played to win they most likely would have been up late not trailing. on your edit: you may want to read more closely. They are all fairly similar situations, some a little easier, some a little tougher. For any fan to act like TOM BRADY can't lead his tam to a tying TD w/ 2 mins left, 3 TOs and great FP. I don't know what to tell you. How can you guys bash sanchez if you don't think Brady can excel in that situation? The Indy players wanted to go undefeated, they had motivation. What motivation did the NE players have? Can you EVER use just the slightest shred of common sense? I didn't use NE, Buf and Mia twice, add those 48 games in and you have 256. Don't EVER doubt my #s. I don't make stuff up like you guys. Oh now #s are skewed:rofl2: This is the first time you are addressing them since I went over them and found them to be completely incorrect. You do know those SOS #s were for the upcoming season, right? so when you post the 2009 ones based on 2008 records it is based on the records from 2008 of the teams we were playing in 2009. before you bash someone you may want to double check #s or at least have a clue what you are looking for. Even though it is a waste of my time I'll show my work: 2008: 11-5 Mia 11-5 NE 7-9 Buf 4-11-1 Cincy 13-3 Ten 8-8 SD 8-8 Den 5-11 oak 2-14 KC 9-7 Ari 7-9 SF 4-12 Sea 2-14 SL total: 91-116-1, 44% 2009: 10-6 NE 7-9 Mia 6-10 Buf 14-2 Ind 9-7 Hou 8-8 Ten 7-9 Jax 10-6 Cin 5-11 Oak 13-3 NO 9-7 Atl 8-8 Car 3-13 TB Total: 109-99, 52% Instead of bashing me please thank me for helping you. Hopefully you won't make this mistake in the future. I feel bad for being a little bit of a jerk towards you but if you didn't act this way towards me I'd just help you w/o goofing on you but you open yourself up when you attack me.
Yeah I thought about that after I posted. I went through the records and his numbers are still wrong. There is only a difference of 12 wins from the combined 2008 records compared to the 2009 records. The 12 more wins 2009 has includes the 14-2 Colts and 10-6 Bengals who didn't put any effort into winning the games like the teams with a much worse record did in 2008. You are right. It doesn't take into account what happened after those teams played the Jets but it goes both ways. What happens when we played a team that had a bunch of injuries that week and they sucked against us? What happens to the SOS when they are return healthy and win the next 10 games? It is a fair point so I compared the records of all the teams before they played the Jets in 2008 and 2009. Starting in week two since everyone starts out 0-0. 2008: 1-0 0-2 2-1 0-5 1-4 1-5 5-2 2-6 6-3 10-0 6-5 4-8 6-7 3-11 10-5 2008 combined records before facing the Jets 57-64 2009: 1-0 0-2 3-0 1-3 1-4 2-4 2-4 4-4 6-3 4-6 4-7 1-11 6-7 14-0 10-5 2009 combined records before facing the Jets is 59-60 The total in 2009 is 59-60 (.495%) The total in 2008 is 57-64 (.471%) 2009 had the tiniest advantage and that doesn't even take into account that we faced the 14-0 Colts and the 10-5 Bengals when they could care less about beating us. When you take that into consideration it is clear that 2008 was the tougher schedule.
so even when you skew them the 2009 #s come out on top? No matter what way you slice it the 2009 sched was MUCH more difficult, we had one of the easiest scheds of all time in 2008 and we failed to capitalize w/ a HOF QB.
Showing what the records were before the teams actually played us is skewing the numbers? But facing the 14-2 Colts and 10-6 Bengals when they didn't care about winning doesn't skew the numbers. Lol!!!! Yep, a 2 game difference that doesn't take into account that we faced the 14-0 Colts and 10-5 Bengals when they didn't care is MUCH more difficult. :rofl2: You provided 5 examples out of a 12 year career. I provided 4 examples where he couldn't do it just in 2009 alone. Again, I am not even arguing that the Patriots put 100% effort into winning that game. The entire point is you saying that NE didn't take the game seriously despite leaving Brady and the starters in for 80% of the game while giving credit to the Jets for the win against the Colts when they clearly didn't care about winning that game. Sure some of the players may have wanted to go undefeated. They were winning the game when they actually were playing. Peyton was leading the team to scores 50% of his drives. Then the coach put them all on the bench and Curtis Painter and the scrubs came to play. How you can have that view for the Houston game and not the Jets game still makes me LOL!!! I doubt your numbers becasue I have proven them wrong before. You must count all games. 2009: 9-7 Hou 10-6 NE 8-8 Ten 13-3 NO 7-9 Mia 6-10 Buf 5-11 Oak 7-9 Mia 7-9 Jax 10-6 Ne 8-8 Car 6-10 Buf 3-13 TB 9-7 Atl 14-2 ind 10-6 cin Total 132-124, .515% 2008 11-5 Mia 11-5 NE 8-8 SD 9-7 Ari 4-11-1 Cin 5-11 Oak 2-14 KC 7-9 Buf 2-14 SL 11-5 NE 13-3 Ten 8-8 Den 7-9 SF 7-9 Buf 4-12 Sea 11-5 Mia Total 120-135-1, .470% Compare 2008 with 2009 and you get a difference of 12 wins and a difference in 4.5% in winning percentage. You somehow came up with a difference of 18 games and an 8% difference in winning percentage. Nearly double the correct numbers. Yes, those 12 extra wins are skewed because we faced the 14-2 Colts and the Bengals when they didn't take those games seriously.
Wow, the Steel Cage SOS death match continues. T, I agree that it does cut both ways, and the closest it gets to a useable stat, is when its a static measure. Pretty much, after the schedule is made all bets are off..... Its useful only if all other conditions remain pristine.
Its not static. It changes relative to things happening during the season, you kneecap your insult, by asking the question, "when has a major QB gone down" PS. You just made Juncs argument, about not knowing what youre talking about. I never use QBR. Thats an ESPN marketing tool. Heres a primer.... http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/qbr-espns-deeply-flawed-made-for-tv-stat/7978/ I was using the universally accepted QB rating. Try to keep up. silly boy.
P.S. lol...heres the point I couldnt find the other day, where Bill Walsh basically explains why Schotty sucks.
Yep, who knows who they played before us? the full record gives us an idea of how good they were most of the year. It's not an exact science but again if you watched football in those years there's no other conclusion than we had a much easier sched in 2008. Indy and Cincy skew things but Miami and NE winning 11 in 2008 does not? got it. No you didn't, you provided examples that weren't close to the Hou example. at NYJ: trails by 7, takes over on own 10 w/ NO timeouts left and 1:48 to play this is the same as 1:47 to play w/ THREE TOs starting at their 34? at den he fumbled in a tie game. at Indy they foolishly went for it on 4th and 2 from their 28. at Mia trailing by 1 got ball at 22 w/ :57 secs left and NO timeouts. where are these similar examples? They were winning by just FIVE midway through the 3rd qtr. They knew they had to be up double digits at least when they left and they couldn't do it. How can you have that view for the Indy game and not the Houston game still makes me LOL!!!!(this was the first time in my life I used LOL", I feel like less of a man) You haven't proven anything wrong before and my #s are right in front of you. Just add them up. We played 13 teams and that was their combined records. The 2009 sched was MUCH tougher 2008 had mediocre teams w/ good records to skew- NE and Mia winning 11 2008 had Aro travelling east where they were slaughtered in 3 NE games that year 2008 saw one of the playoff bound teams at 8-8 yep Indy skews it a bit since they only played for 2 1/2 qtrs. but that is balanced by the deceptive 11 wins by NE & Mia plus Ari coming east. Stevie Wonder could see how easy the 2008 sched was.
