Patriots compared to Cowboys (detailed stat analysis after w

James Farrar · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 15

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:14:09 -0600, Venger
wrote:

>James Farrar wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:18:19 GMT, Venger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> NO STATISTIC CAN INFORM OF THE QUALITY OF
>>> THESE TEAMS BETTER THAN DIRECT COMPETITION.
>>
>> True, but having beaten a team once doesn't guarantee beating them
>> again.
>
>They wouldn't bother playing again were that the case. However, Observer
>has attempted to argue towards parity of these teams using secondary
>measures, when the direct measure is available and it argues against
>parity.

True enough, but the direct measure is only a single data point.

The one thing I *can* be sure of is that if the Cowboys and Patriots
do meet in the Super Bowl, it'll be the first I haven't watched since
XXII, unless I'm mistaken.

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>dallas-cowboys

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >>
> >> the patriots rightly would be the favorite, based on (at
> >> this moment) overall record and head-to-head
> >> match up this season.
> >
> > The statistics barely support that state-
> > ment,
>
> Barely? 12-0 vs. 11-1, with the one game difference being a head to head
> matchup (in which the Patriots destroyed the Cowboys at Dallas). That
> effectively puts the Patriots one and a half games ahead of the Cowboys.

Hearken back to 1990. Two 10-1 teams met.
The 49ers and Giants. The 49ers won, and
won home field advantage. The Giants won
the NFC Championship rematch, and went
on to win the Super Bowl.

This year, that example could be applied to
two 5-0 teams that met earlier, the Patriots
defeating the Cowboys, or two 10-1 teams
that just met, with the Cowboys defeating
the Packers. One win does not a rematch
win.

Statistics, which you seem to be in denial
regarding, support the case that an improv-
ing Cowboys team may be able to match up
with a declining Patriots team.

Have the Cowboys improved since the first
game? Yes. Have the Patriots improved since
the first game? No, and recently, they've barely
been able to pull out a win over two losing
teams, not a good sign heading into the last
four games of the season.

> Will that change? It might. And if it does, then it's time to reconsider
> who will be the favorite. But until that time, the Patriots are the
> favorite and rightfully so.

Yes, the Patriots are the favorite, but as shown
in the 49ers-Giants rematch, the favorite doesn't
always win.

>
> > and the Patriots' recent fade also
> > adds doubt that the Patriots will be able
> > to maintain their perfect record.
>
> I think it's likely that the Patriots lose one of their remaining four. I
> also think it's likely that the Cowboys lose one of their remaining four.

Perhaps. We'll see, and it will be interesting how
these last 4 games impact the Super Bowl prog-
nostications.

---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22412$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>> the patriots rightly would be the favorite, based on (at
>> this moment) overall record and head-to-head
>> match up this season.
>
> The statistics barely support that state-
> ment,

Barely? 12-0 vs. 11-1, with the one game difference being a head to head
matchup (in which the Patriots destroyed the Cowboys at Dallas). That
effectively puts the Patriots one and a half games ahead of the Cowboys.
Will that change? It might. And if it does, then it's time to reconsider
who will be the favorite. But until that time, the Patriots are the
favorite and rightfully so.

> and the Patriots' recent fade also
> adds doubt that the Patriots will be able
> to maintain their perfect record.

I think it's likely that the Patriots lose one of their remaining four. I
also think it's likely that the Cowboys lose one of their remaining four.

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22434$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote ...
>>
>> "observer" wrote ...
>> >>
>> >> the patriots rightly would be the favorite, based on (at
>> >> this moment) overall record and head-to-head
>> >> match up this season.
>> >
>> > The statistics barely support that state-
>> > ment,
>>
>> Barely? 12-0 vs. 11-1, with the one game difference being a head to head
>> matchup (in which the Patriots destroyed the Cowboys at Dallas). That
>> effectively puts the Patriots one and a half games ahead of the Cowboys.
>
> Hearken back to 1990. Two 10-1 teams met.
> The 49ers and Giants. The 49ers won, and
> won home field advantage. The Giants won
> the NFC Championship rematch, and went
> on to win the Super Bowl.
>
> This year, that example could be applied to
> two 5-0 teams that met earlier, the Patriots
> defeating the Cowboys, or two 10-1 teams
> that just met, with the Cowboys defeating
> the Packers. One win does not a rematch
> win.

That's right, and that's why they'll play the game to determine the super
bowl winner. But since we're basically trying to make predictions here, you
have to go with the team with the better record and head-to-head victory
over the team that has a better yards per carry average on grass fields, or
other irrelevant (and confusingly equally weighted?) stats.

> Statistics, which you seem to be in denial
> regarding, support the case that an improv-
> ing Cowboys team may be able to match up
> with a declining Patriots team.

I'm fully aware of the important statistics: 12-0 vs. 11-1.

> Have the Cowboys improved since the first
> game? Yes. Have the Patriots improved since
> the first game? No, and recently, they've barely
> been able to pull out a win over two losing
> teams, not a good sign heading into the last
> four games of the season.

What? Neither team is doing much better or much worse than before the game.
Both were undefeated before the game, and both remain undefeated in games
after their last meeting. This isn't college football. Margin of victory
doesn't matter one bit.

>> Will that change? It might. And if it does, then it's time to
>> reconsider
>> who will be the favorite. But until that time, the Patriots are the
>> favorite and rightfully so.
>
> Yes, the Patriots are the favorite, but as shown
> in the 49ers-Giants rematch, the favorite doesn't
> always win.

I'd like for you to find a single post in this thread that has claimed that
the Patriots will be the guaranteed victors over the Cowboys. We're only
talking about predictions here. Until you recognize that fact, you're just
setting up strawmen -- the first desperate act of a dying argument.

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>[...]
>
> That's right, and that's why they'll play the game to determine the super
> bowl winner. But since we're basically trying to make predictions here, you
> have to go with the team with the better record and head-to-head victory
> over the team that has a better yards per carry average on grass fields, or
> other irrelevant (and confusingly equally weighted?) stats.

Uh, how the teams play, with roughly
equal schedule difficulty, is pertinent,
and the obscure stat you mentioned
was not part of the -33- *key* stats
listed.

>
>
> > Statistics, which you seem to be in denial
> > regarding, support the case that an improv-
> > ing Cowboys team may be able to match up
> > with a declining Patriots team.
>
> I'm fully aware of the important statistics: 12-0 vs. 11-1.

Yawn. Facts: The Cowboys had 6 days rest.
The Patriots had 7 before that game. The
Cowboys were coming off an emotional
win in a late night Monday game. The Patriots
were coming off another one of their 'running
up the score' endeavors.

The Cowboys had -2- key players out who
should be back in topnotch form by rematch
time (if it occurs). The Patriots had a DE
out purported to be a great run stopper, and
with his return, he certainly didn't have a
positive impact on the Patriots ability to
stop the run versus the Ravens.

Sounds to me like you're burying your head
in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
stances have changed since that game, and
unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
might adversely impact the Patriots were a
rematch to occur.

>
> > Have the Cowboys improved since the first
> > game? Yes. Have the Patriots improved since
> > the first game? No, and recently, they've barely
> > been able to pull out a win over two losing
> > teams, not a good sign heading into the last
> > four games of the season.
>
> What? Neither team is doing much better or much worse than
> before the game.

No, the Patriots have struggled versus -2- losing
teams, winning by 3-point margins versus backup
QBs, and the Cowboys' closest game was a -5-
point margin over the Redskins.

> Both were undefeated before the game, and both remain undefeated
> in games after their last meeting. This isn't college football. Margin
> of victory doesn't matter one bit.

Tell that to Belichick who harps on 'running up
the score'.

> >> Will that change? It might. And if it does, then it's time to
> >> reconsider
> >> who will be the favorite. But until that time, the Patriots are the
> >> favorite and rightfully so.
> >
> > Yes, the Patriots are the favorite, but as shown
> > in the 49ers-Giants rematch, the favorite doesn't
> > always win.
>
> I'd like for you to find a single post in this thread that has claimed that
> the Patriots will be the guaranteed victors over the Cowboys. We're only
> talking about predictions here. Until you recognize that fact, you're just
> setting up strawmen -- the first desperate act of a dying argument.

So, you concede that the favorite doesn't
always win, and the depth of your argu-
ment consists of Patriots won last time.
Sorry, that's not very convincing.

---

Venger · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 55

observer wrote:
> "e. phil smeck" wrote ...
>
>> the patriots rightly would be the favorite, based on (at
>> this moment) overall record and head-to-head
>> match up this season.
>
> The statistics barely support that state-
> ment,

You are a certifiable douchebag. Do you wonder why nobody takes you
seriously on stuff? The statistics BARELY support that statement? Just
more proof that putting statistics in the hands of the unwashed is like
giving a monkey power tools.

48-27. How's that stat? What's our record against them? 0-1.

The only stat that means anything on this topic will be a victory over
them. Until then, it's cheap talk and cheaper statistical nincompoopery.

Venger

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Venger" wrote ...
> [...]
>
> 48-27. How's that stat? What's our record against them? 0-1.
>
> The only stat that means anything on this topic will be a victory over
> them. [...]

Yes, and both teams have not changed
one iota since that game? Per you, let's
ignore any changes unless they cross
a line, -or- let's ignore all changes?

I suspect you might have a bit more opti-
mism regarding a 2nd game -if- (one
ponders what might cause Venger to
be more optimistic) ...

Oh, I dunno. Please share, what, if any-
thing, might lead you to think that the
Cowboys have a good chance at de-
feating the Patriots? We realize that
statistical comparisons don't float your
boat. What would? a) nothing, b) some
adverse event on the Patriots side of
the ball, c) some impressive event on
the Cowboys side of the ball, like An-
thony Henry returning to the starting
line-up, or Terry Glenn returning to
the starting line-up.

---

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >
> > "MZ" wrote ...
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >> That's right, and that's why they'll play the game to determine the super
> >> bowl winner. But since we're basically trying to make predictions here,
> >> you
> >> have to go with the team with the better record and head-to-head victory
> >> over the team that has a better yards per carry average on grass fields,
> >> or
> >> other irrelevant (and confusingly equally weighted?) stats.
> >
> > Uh, how the teams play, with roughly
> > equal schedule difficulty, is pertinent,
> > and the obscure stat you mentioned
> > was not part of the -33- *key* stats
> > listed.
>
> No, but it was as irrelevant as the 33 "key stats". The only key stat is
> how well a team achieves its ONLY goal. And that goal is to win games.
> The Patriots have achieved that goal better than the Cowboys have.

Man, you really are impressed with that perfect
record, aren't you?

I'd point out how the Patriots have struggled to
defeat -2- losing teams, but as you don't care
about that, I won't bother.

>
>
> >> > Statistics, which you seem to be in denial
> >> > regarding, support the case that an improv-
> >> > ing Cowboys team may be able to match up
> >> > with a declining Patriots team.
> >>
> >> I'm fully aware of the important statistics: 12-0 vs. 11-1.
> >
> > Yawn. Facts: The Cowboys had 6 days rest.
> > The Patriots had 7 before that game. The
> > Cowboys were coming off an emotional
> > win in a late night Monday game. The Patriots
> > were coming off another one of their 'running
> > up the score' endeavors.
> >
> > The Cowboys had -2- key players out who
> > should be back in topnotch form by rematch
> > time (if it occurs). The Patriots had a DE
> > out purported to be a great run stopper, and
> > with his return, he certainly didn't have a
> > positive impact on the Patriots ability to
> > stop the run versus the Ravens.
>
> Jarvis Green was run all over against the league's best offensive tackle.
> Richard Seymour wasn't. The only standouts Monday night in the Pats front 7
> were Wilfork and Seymour. So whether or not you want to acknowledge that
> Seymour is a substantial upgrade over Jarvis Green is up to you. But just
> about everybody who knows anything about football recognizes that Seymour
> is one of the top linemen in football whereas Green is...Jarvis who? But I'm
> sure there are "33 key statistics" out there that demonstrate that Jarvis Green
> is just as good as Richard Seymour.

The Pats were bowled over in the run game
versus the Ravens. Seymour didn't make a
bit of difference.

>
> > Sounds to me like you're burying your head
> > in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
> > stances have changed since that game, and
> > unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
> > like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
> > might adversely impact the Patriots were a
> > rematch to occur.
>
> Actually, I've acknowledged that circumstances have changed for both teams.
> But you've only acknowledged that circumstances have changed for only one
> team, emphasizing the addition of Anthony Henry while completely devaluing
> the addition of Richard Seymour. And in the meantime you've manufactured
> this idea that the Pats have managed some sort of decline, despite not losing
> a game and maintaining the same average margin of victory after week 6 as
> they had before it.

3 game margins against losing teams don't sup-
port your case.

>
> >> > Have the Cowboys improved since the first
> >> > game? Yes. Have the Patriots improved since
> >> > the first game? No, and recently, they've barely
> >> > been able to pull out a win over two losing
> >> > teams, not a good sign heading into the last
> >> > four games of the season.
> >>
> >> What? Neither team is doing much better or much worse than
> >> before the game.
> >
> > No, the Patriots have struggled versus -2- losing
> > teams, winning by 3-point margins versus backup
> > QBs, and the Cowboys' closest game was a -5-
> > point margin over the Redskins.
>
> If by "struggle" you mean "won", then I agree.
>
>
> >> Both were undefeated before the game, and both remain undefeated
> >> in games after their last meeting. This isn't college football. Margin
> >> of victory doesn't matter one bit.
> >
> > Tell that to Belichick who harps on 'running up
> > the score'.
>
> Are you talking about how the Patriots third stringers ran all over the
> Cowboys starters? Yeah, the Cowboys should be favorites in a rematch.

Third strings like Brady? Oh well, if you want
to move him to 3rd string, that certainly would
help the Cowboys in a rematch.

>
> >> >> Will that change? It might. And if it does, then it's time to
> >> >> reconsider
> >> >> who will be the favorite. But until that time, the Patriots are the
> >> >> favorite and rightfully so.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, the Patriots are the favorite, but as shown
> >> > in the 49ers-Giants rematch, the favorite doesn't
> >> > always win.
> >>
> >> I'd like for you to find a single post in this thread that has claimed
> >> that
> >> the Patriots will be the guaranteed victors over the Cowboys. We're only
> >> talking about predictions here. Until you recognize that fact, you're
> >> just
> >> setting up strawmen -- the first desperate act of a dying argument.
> >
> > So, you concede that the favorite doesn't
> > always win, and the depth of your argu-
> > ment consists of Patriots won last time.
> > Sorry, that's not very convincing.
>
> I'm surprised you missed it, because I've repeated my argument over and over
> for you: 12-0 vs. 11-1. If that's not convincing, but "33 key stats" is,
> then I suggest you learn a thing or two about the game of football.

Your dependence on records is a reflection of
hubris, in my opinion. Of course, pride in a
record is nothing to be ashamed of, but ignoring
*key* stats, including Pats stats, does nothing
but weaken your case.

---

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Venger" wrote ...
> [...]
>
> Make no mistake, there is no reason to think the Patriots will not be
> notable favorites in EVERY GAME LEFT THIS YEAR. [...]

Yeah, they were favored by 22 versus the
Eagles, and being that I didn't pay attention,
I don't know how much they were favored
by versus the Ravens. They've fallen far
short of expectations in the last -2- games,
against -2- losing teams, against -2- backup
QBs, and -if- that isn't a signal that's some-
thing is amiss in Patriotland, I'd suggest you
have been overly impressed by Patriot one-
sided margins, and are in denial regarding
their -2- near-losses to -2- losing teams.

---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22414$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote ...
>>[...]
>>
>> That's right, and that's why they'll play the game to determine the super
>> bowl winner. But since we're basically trying to make predictions here,
>> you
>> have to go with the team with the better record and head-to-head victory
>> over the team that has a better yards per carry average on grass fields,
>> or
>> other irrelevant (and confusingly equally weighted?) stats.
>
> Uh, how the teams play, with roughly
> equal schedule difficulty, is pertinent,
> and the obscure stat you mentioned
> was not part of the -33- *key* stats
> listed.

No, but it was as irrelevant as the 33 "key stats". The only key stat is
how well a team achieves its ONLY goal. And that goal is to win games. The
Patriots have achieved that goal better than the Cowboys have.

>> > Statistics, which you seem to be in denial
>> > regarding, support the case that an improv-
>> > ing Cowboys team may be able to match up
>> > with a declining Patriots team.
>>
>> I'm fully aware of the important statistics: 12-0 vs. 11-1.
>
> Yawn. Facts: The Cowboys had 6 days rest.
> The Patriots had 7 before that game. The
> Cowboys were coming off an emotional
> win in a late night Monday game. The Patriots
> were coming off another one of their 'running
> up the score' endeavors.
>
> The Cowboys had -2- key players out who
> should be back in topnotch form by rematch
> time (if it occurs). The Patriots had a DE
> out purported to be a great run stopper, and
> with his return, he certainly didn't have a
> positive impact on the Patriots ability to
> stop the run versus the Ravens.

Jarvis Green was run all over against the league's best offensive tackle.
Richard Seymour wasn't. The only standouts Monday night in the Pats front 7
were Wilfork and Seymour. So whether or not you want to acknowledge that
Seymour is a substantial upgrade over Jarvis Green is up to you. But just
about everybody who knows anything about football recognizes that Seymour is
one of the top linemen in football whereas Green is...Jarvis who? But I'm
sure there are "33 key statistics" out there that demonstrate that Jarvis
Green is just as good as Richard Seymour.

> Sounds to me like you're burying your head
> in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
> stances have changed since that game, and
> unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
> like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
> might adversely impact the Patriots were a
> rematch to occur.

Actually, I've acknowledged that circumstances have changed for both teams.
But you've only acknowledged that circumstances have changed for only one
team, emphasizing the addition of Anthony Henry while completely devaluing
the addition of Richard Seymour. And in the meantime you've manufactured
this idea that the Pats have managed some sort of decline, despite not
losing a game and maintaining the same average margin of victory after week
6 as they had before it.

>> > Have the Cowboys improved since the first
>> > game? Yes. Have the Patriots improved since
>> > the first game? No, and recently, they've barely
>> > been able to pull out a win over two losing
>> > teams, not a good sign heading into the last
>> > four games of the season.
>>
>> What? Neither team is doing much better or much worse than
>> before the game.
>
> No, the Patriots have struggled versus -2- losing
> teams, winning by 3-point margins versus backup
> QBs, and the Cowboys' closest game was a -5-
> point margin over the Redskins.

If by "struggle" you mean "won", then I agree.

>> Both were undefeated before the game, and both remain undefeated
>> in games after their last meeting. This isn't college football. Margin
>> of victory doesn't matter one bit.
>
> Tell that to Belichick who harps on 'running up
> the score'.

Are you talking about how the Patriots third stringers ran all over the
Cowboys starters? Yeah, the Cowboys should be favorites in a rematch.

>> >> Will that change? It might. And if it does, then it's time to
>> >> reconsider
>> >> who will be the favorite. But until that time, the Patriots are the
>> >> favorite and rightfully so.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Patriots are the favorite, but as shown
>> > in the 49ers-Giants rematch, the favorite doesn't
>> > always win.
>>
>> I'd like for you to find a single post in this thread that has claimed
>> that
>> the Patriots will be the guaranteed victors over the Cowboys. We're only
>> talking about predictions here. Until you recognize that fact, you're
>> just
>> setting up strawmen -- the first desperate act of a dying argument.
>
> So, you concede that the favorite doesn't
> always win, and the depth of your argu-
> ment consists of Patriots won last time.
> Sorry, that's not very convincing.

I'm surprised you missed it, because I've repeated my argument over and over
for you: 12-0 vs. 11-1. If that's not convincing, but "33 key stats" is,
then I suggest you learn a thing or two about the game of football.

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22406$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> some impressive event on
> the Cowboys side of the ball, like An-
> thony Henry returning to the starting
> line-up,

So the difference between 48-27 and the next matchup will be Anthony Henry?
To be honest, I've never heard anyone before you refer to Anthony Henry as a
difference-maker.

> or Terry Glenn returning to
> the starting line-up.

Lemme know when that happens, ok?

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22414$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> Sounds to me like you're burying your head
> in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
> stances have changed since that game, and
> unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
> like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
> might adversely impact the Patriots were a
> rematch to occur.

And since you continue to insist that the Cowboys have been playing better
than the Patriots since they met in week 6, let's take a look at a couple of
things.

* Both teams are 6-0 since then.
* The Pats have won by a margin of victory of 20.3 whereas the Cowboys have
won by 14.6.
* Of those 6 games, Dallas played 4 at home whereas New England played 2 at
home.
* The common teams they've faced during that stretch are Washington and
Philly. In the other games, the Pats have faced Indy, Buffalo, Baltimore,
and Miami. The Cowboys have faced Green Bay, Giants, Vikings, and the Jets.

Where is this alleged difference in how the teams have played since then?
The strength of schedule is roughly equivalent and both teams have been
perfect since then. The Pats have the margin of victory advantage, but only
stat-geeks think that sort of thing is relevant anyway.

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22420$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote ...
>> No, but it was as irrelevant as the 33 "key stats". The only key stat is
>> how well a team achieves its ONLY goal. And that goal is to win games.
>> The Patriots have achieved that goal better than the Cowboys have.
>
> Man, you really are impressed with that perfect
> record, aren't you?
>
> I'd point out how the Patriots have struggled to
> defeat -2- losing teams, but as you don't care
> about that, I won't bother.

Don't bother, because they're W's.

And to answer your question, yes, I'm impressed by both the Patriots and
Cowboys records. I'm more impressed with New England's record though,
because 12>11. It's really not that hard.

>> Jarvis Green was run all over against the league's best offensive tackle.
>> Richard Seymour wasn't. The only standouts Monday night in the Pats
>> front 7
>> were Wilfork and Seymour. So whether or not you want to acknowledge that
>> Seymour is a substantial upgrade over Jarvis Green is up to you. But
>> just
>> about everybody who knows anything about football recognizes that Seymour
>> is one of the top linemen in football whereas Green is...Jarvis who? But
>> I'm
>> sure there are "33 key statistics" out there that demonstrate that Jarvis
>> Green
>> is just as good as Richard Seymour.
>
> The Pats were bowled over in the run game
> versus the Ravens. Seymour didn't make a
> bit of difference.

What a simplistic view. If the run defense gives up a lot of yards, that
must mean that every player on the defense must have played poorly against
the run, right?

Next time try watching the game and actually come up with a critique of a
player's performance rather than making broad sweeping (and inaccurate)
generalizations.

>> Actually, I've acknowledged that circumstances have changed for both
>> teams.
>> But you've only acknowledged that circumstances have changed for only one
>> team, emphasizing the addition of Anthony Henry while completely
>> devaluing
>> the addition of Richard Seymour. And in the meantime you've manufactured
>> this idea that the Pats have managed some sort of decline, despite not
>> losing
>> a game and maintaining the same average margin of victory after week 6 as
>> they had before it.
>
> 3 game margins against losing teams don't sup-
> port your case.

As opposed to 5 point margins against losing teams? [eg. Dallas 28
Washington 23]

>> Are you talking about how the Patriots third stringers ran all over the
>> Cowboys starters? Yeah, the Cowboys should be favorites in a rematch.
>
> Third strings like Brady? Oh well, if you want
> to move him to 3rd string, that certainly would
> help the Cowboys in a rematch.

No, third strings like Kyle Eckel (actually a 5th stringer at the time).
You remember him, don't you? He was the guy who scored the "running up the
score" TD against the Cowboys by repeatedly running all over the Cowboy
defense.

>> I'm surprised you missed it, because I've repeated my argument over and
>> over
>> for you: 12-0 vs. 11-1. If that's not convincing, but "33 key stats"
>> is,
>> then I suggest you learn a thing or two about the game of football.
>
> Your dependence on records is a reflection of
> hubris, in my opinion. Of course, pride in a
> record is nothing to be ashamed of, but ignoring
> *key* stats, including Pats stats, does nothing
> but weaken your case.

You are what your record says you are.

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22455$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "Venger" wrote ...
>> [...]
>>
>> Make no mistake, there is no reason to think the Patriots will not be
>> notable favorites in EVERY GAME LEFT THIS YEAR. [...]
>
> Yeah, they were favored by 22 versus the
> Eagles, and being that I didn't pay attention,
> I don't know how much they were favored
> by versus the Ravens. They've fallen far
> short of expectations in the last -2- games,

The point of a football game is to win it, not to beat the betting spread.
HTH

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >
> > Sounds to me like you're burying your head
> > in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
> > stances have changed since that game, and
> > unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
> > like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
> > might adversely impact the Patriots were a
> > rematch to occur.
>
> And since you continue to insist that the Cowboys have been playing better
> than the Patriots since they met in week 6, let's take a look at a couple of
> things.
>
> * Both teams are 6-0 since then.
> * The Pats have won by a margin of victory of 20.3 whereas the Cowboys have
> won by 14.6.
> * Of those 6 games, Dallas played 4 at home whereas New England played 2 at
> home.
> * The common teams they've faced during that stretch are Washington and
> Philly. In the other games, the Pats have faced Indy, Buffalo, Baltimore,
> and Miami. The Cowboys have faced Green Bay, Giants, Vikings, and the Jets.
>
> Where is this alleged difference in how the teams have played since then?
> The strength of schedule is roughly equivalent and both teams have been
> perfect since then. The Pats have the margin of victory advantage, but only
> stat-geeks think that sort of thing is relevant anyway.

Have you been following the Patriots efforts
lately? Certainly, they've won, but is that
enough to console you? If a team falls short
of expectations, by wide margins, is a win
enough to make you think they haven't lost
something along the way?

A quick look at a stat comparison between
the Cowboys' last -2- efforts against likely
playoff teams, the Giants & Packers, com-
pared to the Patriots' last -2- efforts, both
against losing teams, the Eagles and Ravens:

[this stats comparison, by the way, is one
with those who care not about how a team
has done over an entire season, but who
care very much about how a team has
done lately, albeit that fans of fairness
would contend it's unfair to compare a
team's last -2- outings versus likely play-
off teams to another team's last -2- outings
versus losing teams ... nevertheless, here
goes]

Points/game : Cowboys 34.0, Patriots 29.0
Points/game allowed : Cowboys 23.5, Patriots 26.0

Total yards/game : Cowboys 368.5, Patriots 368.0
Total yards/game allowed : Cowboys 328.5, Patriots 383.5

Passer-Rating : Cowboys 123.3, Patriots 84.4
Passer-Rating Allowed : Cowboys 56.9, Patriots 91.5

So in 6 of 6 key categories, the Cowboys best
the Patriots in the latest -2- matchups by the
Cowboys against likely playoff teams com-
pared to the last -2- matchups by the Patriots,
both of which were against losing teams.

Now, to the statistically challenged, this might
be unimpressive, but for those who wonder -if-
the Cowboys are playing lights out football
lately and -if- the Patriots are starting to stum-
ble, these stats should offer support for both
of those stances.

---

Since you've focused on the Patriots' 12-0
record, it may be appropriate to look at how
the other five 12-0 NFL starters finished the
season:

Year Team Started Finish First loss Result

2007 Patriots 12-0 -- -- --
2005 Colts 13-0 14-2 Chargers Lost div. playoff game
1998 Broncos 13-0 14-2 Giants Won Super Bowl XXIII
1985 Bears 12-0 15-1 Dolphins Won Super Bowl XX
1972 Dolphins 14-0 14-0 None Won Super Bowl VII
1934 Bears 13-0 13-0 Giants Lost NFL title game
(playoffs)

---