Ranking the Unbeatens - 2015

[H78]

H78, I think you also forgot what December looked like for that 2007 Pats team. 3 point win vs. Philly. 3 point win at Baltimore when they nearly lost if not for a penalty on 4th down. 20-10 home win against the Jets. 3 point win in NY against the Giants.
 
That team was dominant early in the season, but not too much down the stretch. Who knows how this year will play out. I also think this is a 14-2 type of team, but in reality, 2007 may have been too.

You make a valid point - but I did remember that stretch. Even in the playoffs they weren't dominant, beating the Jags by 11 and the Chargers (without LT) by 9. But that was late in the season where they seemed to be hitting a wall from playing at such a high level all year long, and also playing against competition probably a little more motivated to beat them and ruin their perfect season. This year, it almost feels like they're hitting that same wall a lot earlier. In games 6, 7, and 8 that year they put up 48, 49, and 52 points, respectively. We'll see what they do against the Phins, but I don't think anyone is expecting 40-or-50-something-plus points tomorrow. I also realize matchups have a lot to do with what they did versus what they did not, but no matter the competition, in the NFL 40 and 50+ points is complete domination. This squad doesn't feel as if they can deliver that same kind of consistency.

I think my overall point is that the media comparisons to 2007 need to stop. It's very obvious what they're trying to do and it's kind of annoying; set the Patriots up with insane expectations by comparing them to possibly the best football team ever, and then flame away if/when the Patriots can't meet those expectations down the road. It's a bunch of media hyperbole to set up easy, critical columns later this year.

This offense is not nearly as consistently good as that offense was, and the defense this year, at least when it comes to PA, is worse; the 2007 D had given up 92 points through the first six games; this year's squad is already up to 126. I'd honestly be totally shocked if they go undefeated. If they did, part of me worries about even higher playoff expectations because I think this team can be beat by a team with a solid quarterback who'll pick apart the secondary, that also has a "good enough" defense to force a few punts out of the Patriots. And I think that team absolutely exists in the NFC - in Green Bay.

 

[DJnVa]

The vibe I'm getting from this team is similar to many of the 2006-13 teams, one where the defense, particularly the back end, may not be stout enough to hold off elite offenses in the playoffs.

 
But that (not holding off elite offenses in the playoffs) hasn't really been a theme of the teams you mention:
 
2006--Well, this one was, giving up 38 to Colts
 
2007--Defense allowed 17 points
 
2008--No postseason
 
2009--Gave up 33 to Ravens, but the defense wasn't really the issue. One long Rice run on first play, then Ravens somehow score 17 more points in first quarter despite gaining less than 50 yards. Brady sack, fumble and Ravens had ball on NE 17 and scored a TD. Pats forced 3 and out next Ravens possession, then a Brady INT and Ravens had ball on Pats 25 and punched it in, then another Brady pick and they had ball in red zone. All in first quarter.
 
2010--Allowed 28 points to Jets, but this was the game with the botched fake punt, giving the Jets the ball on NE 38 and later on the took over on Pats 30 after onside kick recovery and return--those 2 plays set Jets up nicely for 14 points.
 
2011--Only allowed 21 points to Giants.
 
2012--Allowed 28 to Ravens, but that was the game where Ridley fumbled in Pats territory in 4th quarter.
 
2013--All of that book-ended by Denver and Manning, but they "only" scored 26.
 
So, I guess that when you look at the losses, the Pats were never a team that was going to win 10-7, so they were always going to allow some points, but I don't think those season-ending losses had the theme of the defense folding up when faced with elite offenses.
 
Seven postseason losses, two of them allowing 21 points or less and two more gifting short fields to Ravens and Jets. The theme to me was the same as most teams that lose playoff games--turnovers.

 

[tims4wins]

You make a valid point - but I did remember that stretch. Even in the playoffs they weren't dominant, beating the Jags by 11 and the Chargers (without LT) by 9. But that was late in the season where they seemed to be hitting a wall from playing at such a high level all year long, and also playing against competition probably a little more motivated to beat them and ruin their perfect season. This year, it almost feels like they're hitting that same wall a lot earlier. In games 6, 7, and 8 that year they put up 48, 49, and 52 points, respectively. We'll see what they do against the Phins, but I don't think anyone is expecting 40-or-50-something-plus points tomorrow. I also realize matchups have a lot to do with what they did versus what they did not, but no matter the competition, in the NFL 40 and 50+ points is complete domination. This squad doesn't feel as if they can deliver that same kind of consistency.

I think my overall point is that the media comparisons to 2007 need to stop. It's very obvious what they're trying to do and it's kind of annoying; set the Patriots up with insane expectations by comparing them to possibly the best football team ever, and then flame away if/when the Patriots can't meet those expectations down the road. It's a bunch of media hyperbole to set up easy, critical columns later this year.

This offense is not nearly as consistently good as that offense was, and the defense this year, at least when it comes to PA, is worse; the 2007 D had given up 92 points through the first six games; this year's squad is already up to 126. I'd honestly be totally shocked if they go undefeated. If they did, part of me worries about even higher playoff expectations because I think this team can be beat by a team with a solid quarterback who'll pick apart the secondary, that also has a "good enough" defense to force a few punts out of the Patriots. And I think that team absolutely exists in the NFC - in Green Bay.

 
I agree it was a different team in 2007, but I can't agree that they are hitting some sort of wall. The last 3 games they have put up 30 on Dallas, who played really hard on D; 34 on Indy; and 30 against an excellent Jets D. That is a really good stretch.

 

[DJnVa]

I'd honestly be totally shocked if they go undefeated. .

 

Um, okay. So would everyone else.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I mean, they are 6-0 and lead the league in point differential. 
 
Yeah, they are probably not going to go undefeated, because it is really fucking hard to go undefeated.  But when you start saying stuff like "this feels like a 14-2 team not a 16-0 team" I'm not sure how to respond to that.  14-2 is pretty fucking good.  And if we are worrying about how to beat Green Bay in the Super Bowl after a 14-2 regular season, yeah, that's a great fucking season regardless of whether they win that last game or not.

 

 

[Ralphwiggum]

If the point is that the media is dumb for the 2007 comparisons and the undefeated talk after 6 games, then yeah, the media is dumb.

 

[Toe Nash]

You make a valid point - but I did remember that stretch. Even in the playoffs they weren't dominant, beating the Jags by 11 and the Chargers (without LT) by 9. But that was late in the season where they seemed to be hitting a wall from playing at such a high level all year long, and also playing against competition probably a little more motivated to beat them and ruin their perfect season. This year, it almost feels like they're hitting that same wall a lot earlier. In games 6, 7, and 8 that year they put up 48, 49, and 52 points, respectively. We'll see what they do against the Phins, but I don't think anyone is expecting 40-or-50-something-plus points tomorrow. I also realize matchups have a lot to do with what they did versus what they did not, but no matter the competition, in the NFL 40 and 50+ points is complete domination. This squad doesn't feel as if they can deliver that same kind of consistency.

I think my overall point is that the media comparisons to 2007 need to stop. It's very obvious what they're trying to do and it's kind of annoying; set the Patriots up with insane expectations by comparing them to possibly the best football team ever, and then flame away if/when the Patriots can't meet those expectations down the road. It's a bunch of media hyperbole to set up easy, critical columns later this year.

This offense is not nearly as consistently good as that offense was, and the defense this year, at least when it comes to PA, is worse; the 2007 D had given up 92 points through the first six games; this year's squad is already up to 126. I'd honestly be totally shocked if they go undefeated. If they did, part of me worries about even higher playoff expectations because I think this team can be beat by a team with a solid quarterback who'll pick apart the secondary, that also has a "good enough" defense to force a few punts out of the Patriots. And I think that team absolutely exists in the NFC - in Green Bay.

1. Media comparisons to 2007 and "raising expectations" might be annoying to fans, but I'm pretty confident they aren't affecting the team. BB will have them well-prepared and grounded, and teams always give their best against NE regardless of whether they are 11-5 or 16-0. Completely unimportant.
2. The 2007 team was on a completely different planet from everyone before the bye, but as has been pointed out they needed some major luck to be 18-0. This is actually different from most Pats teams since then, who have tended to get better as the season goes on. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats start looking more impressive as the season goes on (though certainly there will be some close games in there as well).

 

[BaseballJones]

My concern with the defense is that it may hurt them like the 2011 SB loss to the Giants, when NY was able to control the ball and the clock, giving the Patriots only 9 drives with which to work. When that happens, unless you're incredibly efficient, it's hard to score a lot of points. This team is better suited towards games with lots of possessions, so their ability to get quick stops will be huge in the playoffs.

 

[pokey_reese]

 
But that (not holding off elite offenses in the playoffs) hasn't really been a theme of the teams you mention:
 
2006--Well, this one was, giving up 38 to Colts
 
2007--Defense allowed 17 points
 
2008--No postseason
 
2009--Gave up 33 to Ravens, but the defense wasn't really the issue. One long Rice run on first play, then Ravens somehow score 17 more points in first quarter despite gaining less than 50 yards. Brady sack, fumble and Ravens had ball on NE 17 and scored a TD. Pats forced 3 and out next Ravens possession, then a Brady INT and Ravens had ball on Pats 25 and punched it in, then another Brady pick and they had ball in red zone. All in first quarter.
 
2010--Allowed 28 points to Jets, but this was the game with the botched fake punt, giving the Jets the ball on NE 38 and later on the took over on Pats 30 after onside kick recovery and return--those 2 plays set Jets up nicely for 14 points.
 
2011--Only allowed 21 points to Giants.
 
2012--Allowed 28 to Ravens, but that was the game where Ridley fumbled in Pats territory in 4th quarter.
 
2013--All of that book-ended by Denver and Manning, but they "only" scored 26.
 
So, I guess that when you look at the losses, the Pats were never a team that was going to win 10-7, so they were always going to allow some points, but I don't think those season-ending losses had the theme of the defense folding up when faced with elite offenses.
 
Seven postseason losses, two of them allowing 21 points or less and two more gifting short fields to Ravens and Jets. The theme to me was the same as most teams that lose playoff games--turnovers.

I mean, giving up an average of 27+ points in those losses doesn't exactly invalidate the theory, though you are absolutely right that turnovers have a lot to do with it. Conversely though, you could continue the 'defensive weakness' narrative along those lines by saying that the defense in those years wasn't good enough to overcome a couple of short fields, essentially putting all of the pressure on the offense to score at least 30 and not turn the ball over. I think that is essentially the point that was being made, not that the defense was horrible, but that it wasn't a strength of those teams and that it did kind of build up an aura of being potentially unable to pick up the offense on their rare bad days. This year's team, like in many of those other years you mentioned, will win because of the offense, if not in spite of the defense.

 

[dbn]

Let's look at the remaining schedule and do a "back of the envelope" estimate to predict their final record.
 
Six "easy" games: MIA, WAS, BUF, PHI, @HOU, TEN
If you think they have a 90% chance to win each individual game (totally made that number up, probably high), there is a 50/50 chance they lose at least one of them. If you lower that to a 85% chance, then they have a 62% chance to lose at least one. If it's 80%, then they have a 74% chance to lose at least one.
 
The four other games: @NYG, @DEN, @NYJ, @MIA
If you think they have a 65% chance to win each of those games (again, totally made up number), their loss expectancy is 1.4 games.
 
Again, I pulled those %s out of the air; this is only meant to give a general idea. I think the most likely final record is 13-3 or 14-2. Of course, that is based on the team right now. They could get even hotter, or have their OL fall even more apart, etc.

 

[loshjott]

I mean, giving up an average of 27+ points in those losses doesn't exactly invalidate the theory, though you are absolutely right that turnovers have a lot to do with it. Conversely though, you could continue the 'defensive weakness' narrative along those lines by saying that the defense in those years wasn't good enough to overcome a couple of short fields, essentially putting all of the pressure on the offense to score at least 30 and not turn the ball over. I think that is essentially the point that was being made, not that the defense was horrible, but that it wasn't a strength of those teams and that it did kind of build up an aura of being potentially unable to pick up the offense on their rare bad days. This year's team, like in many of those other years you mentioned, will win because of the offense, if not in spite of the defense.

 
Yes, that was pretty much my point. And BaseballJones also made it better than me about the seeming inability to get off the field on 3rd down, limiting the offense's possessions. 

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Yes, that was pretty much my point. And BaseballJones also made it better than me about the seeming inability to get off the field on 3rd down, limiting the offense's possessions. 

The defense was also unable to force turnovers in many of those games, in addition to being unable to get off the field as BaseballJones mentioned (of course, a turnover is one way to get off the field).

 

[wiffleballhero]

Let's look at the remaining schedule and do a "back of the envelope" estimate to predict their final record.
 
Six "easy" games: MIA, WAS, BUF, PHI, @HOU, TEN
If you think they have a 90% chance to win each individual game (totally made that number up, probably high), there is a 50/50 chance they lose at least one of them. If you lower that to a 85% chance, then they have a 62% chance to lose at least one. If it's 80%, then they have a 74% chance to lose at least one.
 
The four other games: @NYG, @DEN, @NYJ, @MIA
If you think they have a 65% chance to win each of those games (again, totally made up number), their loss expectancy is 1.4 games.
 
Again, I pulled those %s out of the air; this is only meant to give a general idea. I think the most likely final record is 13-3 or 14-2. Of course, that is based on the team right now. They could get even hotter, or have their OL fall even more apart, etc.

The other side of this kind of math is also true: short of injuries, there is no particular game that anyone should expect them to lose. Short of things demonstrably changing for the Patriots or for one of the teams on their schedule, they will continue to go into the one and only game in front of them looking like the favorite until the end of the season.
 
I oddly don't really care if they win out in the regular season. If it has any impact on their ability to close the deal at the end, then I say throw the last two games for all I care. I worry that at least two NFC teams would give them a world of trouble on a neutral field (GB and CAR). It is also pretty easy to see that most NFL seasons look different on January 28 vs October 28.

 

[Leather]

My concern with the defense is that it may hurt them like the 2011 SB loss to the Giants, when NY was able to control the ball and the clock, giving the Patriots only 9 drives with which to work. When that happens, unless you're incredibly efficient, it's hard to score a lot of points. This team is better suited towards games with lots of possessions, so their ability to get quick stops will be huge in the playoffs.

 
That game was still a coin flip until the last seconds. 
 
If you're worried that this team might only have a coin flip of a chance at winning the Super Bowl, well, I don't know what to tell you except to gain some perspective.
 
A Top 3 Offense and an OK Defense is a perfectly valid way to construct a championship team in this NFL.   When you have an all-time great at QB, it's probably the best way.   Teams that have a stacked offense and a stacked defense just don't exist anymore.

 

[H78]

 
Um, okay. So would everyone else.

Why does it always seem to be the same posters making the same snippy comments over and over on SoSH?

Anyways, I think you're wrong. Maybe HERE people would be surprised, but if you listen to the average fan/pundit talk about the Patriots, it's almost as if they're trying to *find* reasons why they could lose because the underlying expectation is it looks like they won't. There have been a number of articles/radio segments that ask the question "who's left that could beat the Patriots?" So, UMMMM, ok, some people wouldn't be shocked.

Edit: Posting from your phone means typos.

 

[Leather]

Right, but pundits are trying to create stories.  They aren't interested in objectivity if it results in a non-story.
 
Taking a short view, it seems easy for the Patriots to be undefeated.  They should win all ten of their remaining games, as viewed at this point in time.
 
But taken in sum, the odds of that happening are still impossibly small.  
 
Imagine that we spot the Pats an 80% chance to win every remaining game on their schedule, regardless of opponent or home field.   Just for argument's sake, and accepting that sometimes that number will be a little high, and sometimes it might be a little low.    In doing the math, that means that the Patriots still only have a 10% chance of going undefeated.  
 
In other words:  "shit happens" far more often, over time, than most people realize.  
 
It's why even on those days where the weather man says there's a "10% chance of rain", it sometimes rains.

 

[Jettisoned]

I wouldn't characterize a .1 probability as impossibly small.

 

[Leather]

Depends on the context.  
 
In this context, it's not worth spending much time thinking about, much less seriously considering the possibility that they might go undefeated.  
 
At 9-0, let's talk.

 

[DJnVa]

I mean, giving up an average of 27+ points in those losses doesn't exactly invalidate the theory,

 
Sure. But the offense, which averaged 32 points/game scored an average of about 16 in those games.
 
I know that after the 2 Super Bowl losses, my lament wasn't that we allowed the Giants to score about 17 and then 21 points. It was how the hell did we only score 14 and 17.
 
EDIT: I feel like people might think I'm arguing that the defense wasn't a problem and I'm not saying that at all. There was plenty of blame to go around.

 

[amarshal2]

Let's look at the remaining schedule and do a "back of the envelope" estimate to predict their final record.
 
Six "easy" games: MIA, WAS, BUF, PHI, @HOU, TEN
If you think they have a 90% chance to win each individual game (totally made that number up, probably high), there is a 50/50 chance they lose at least one of them. If you lower that to a 85% chance, then they have a 62% chance to lose at least one. If it's 80%, then they have a 74% chance to lose at least one.
 
The four other games: @NYG, @DEN, @NYJ, @MIA
If you think they have a 65% chance to win each of those games (again, totally made up number), their loss expectancy is 1.4 games.
 
Again, I pulled those %s out of the air; this is only meant to give a general idea. I think the most likely final record is 13-3 or 14-2. Of course, that is based on the team right now. They could get even hotter, or have their OL fall even more apart, etc.

 
 
I disagree with the premise that right now they're expectation from here on out is that they lose 2-3 games.  That would mean that, at the beginning of the season, you'd say they were a ~12 win team.  That might sound reasonable - you see lots of 13 or 14 win teams but you don't see many 14 win projections in pre-season.  Typically, teams probably are 12 win teams in terms of talent and performance that luck into 13 or 14 wins one year and 10 or 11 another.  But that's not really true for the Patriots and it's not the way I would think about what we know about this Patriots team.  The Patriots consistently win 12+ games every year -- their true talent level over the last decade is probably ~13 wins per year, on average.  This current team is above average for the Patriots, it's healthy in the top positions, and it's already achieved a high level of performance early in the season which is unusual for Patriots teams.  Most great 13-3 or 14-2 Patriots teams already had a loss or two by their 6th game.   Edit: And the schedule is unusually soft.  The AFC South and NFC East are jokes.  They're not playing the Packers, Bengals, or Panthers.
 
At this point, shouldn't the expectation be that the Patriots win 15 games this season?  How many people are betting the under on 15 wins, really?  They're going to be favored in all 10 games from here on out by some substantial margins, and they probably drop one.  Looking at the results based on the spread undersells how good they've been. This team probably could have won each of its first 6 games by two scores if not for soft zones and experimental play calling after they reached 99% probability of victory.  This weren't flukey wins, either.  There have been no high leverage punt blocks or pick 6's that swung games.  They've lined up and beaten the other team comfortably the old fashioned way.  
 
Basically, I think giving them a 65% chance to beat the Giants or the Dolphins is thinking like they're a 12 win pre-season team when that's really not the case.  It's really not crazy to be talking about going undefeated in the regular season.  It's not the expectation of course, but it's not even remotely out of reach.  You might recall a team did it 8 years ago.
 
Edit 2 - Moved this paragraph from the top to bottom for clarity.
 
So if their real, pre-season talent level is about 14-2, what percentage of the time do teams where the probabilistic expectation is that they will go 14-2, instead go undefeated?  Better yet, what percentage of the time do teams that had the probabilistic expectation of winning 14 games in hindsight that starts off with 6 relatively easy wins including arguably the hardest on their schedule (Pitt.) go undefeated?

 

[Leather]

A lot of this comes down to what the playoff picture looks like in week 17.  
 
There's a decent possibility that the Patriots could roll into week 17 at 14-1 and rest their starters after the 1st quarter and lose that game.
 
For that reason, I'd take the under on +/- 15 wins.

 

[amarshal2]

A lot of this comes down to what the playoff picture looks like in week 17.  
 
There's a decent possibility that the Patriots could roll into week 17 at 14-1 and rest their starters after the 1st quarter and lose that game.
 
For that reason, I'd take the under on +/- 15 wins.

 
Totally reasonable and something I didn't properly account for above.  However, then the back of the envelope odds should be significantly higher for every game through week 16 and then they should be ~50% in week 17.

 

[bakahump]

I know its so incredibly unlikely as to be stupid to think......yet....
 
What if the Bengals, Pats (or Den)  and GB (or Panthers) all went 16-0.  IE Multiple 16-0 teams.  Wouldnt that be a pisser.
 
Challanges:
Panthers have to beat GB and Atlanta twice.
GB has @Denver and  @Panthers and a late season reinforced Dallas.
Bengals have @ Cards, Steelers and @ Denver late in the season
Pats have Bills, @ Broncos, @NYJ and @ Miami.
Denver seems screwed with Packers, Patriots and Bengals (but all at home).  They also have tough matchups with KC, Oak, @Steelers and Maybe the @Colts.
 
 
 
Which of those has the best shot?
If I had to rank them...
Bengals
GB/Pats
Panthers
Denver
 
In ranking them I came to the (reinforced and reiterated) conclusion "THATS WHY ITS HARD TO GO UNDEFEATED".  Its hard to argue any of those teams will go unbeaten.

 

[luckiestman]

Holy Shit!! The sequence was more crazy than I remembered....
 
 
 
 
Goes to show what you need to go undefeated. Lots of luck and taking advantage of it when it happens.

Are you leaving out the part where Bart Scott picked up the flag and whipped it out of the end zone

 

[dcmissle]

You can make a reasoanable argument that the 07 team would have been better off had it dropped one down the stretch.

Bruschi has made that argument. He said the pressure was unbelievable and counterproductive.

So while you try to win every game, obviously, who wants this and why? To ruin Don Shula's day?

Screw him and the media.

We are not likely to get it. If this season goes as we hope, we may have HFA, and certainly the division locked up after Game 14. Then come NYJ and Miami on the road to close it out, and at least one of those teams probably will have much more to play for than the Pats.

 

[BaseballJones]

The defense was also unable to force turnovers in many of those games, in addition to being unable to get off the field as BaseballJones mentioned (of course, a turnover is one way to get off the field).

I'm the second Pats-Giants Super Bowl, this really was frustrating. There were at least two fumbles that I can think of that the Giants had (Bradshaw on their like 12 yard line following the interception of Brady on the deep pass to Gronk, and Nicks as the Giants were driving in Pats territory...that drive led to three points for NY), but which NY also recovered. Both had a ton of Pats players around the ball but in both cases the ball bounced directly to Giants players.

So it wasn't like the Pats weren't causing fumbles; they just didn't manage to recover them. And sometimes that's the difference in a game. So if you're not getting three and outs, yeah, you need to get turnovers, and if you get neither, even if you hold them to field goals, you're allowing them to shorten the game, which usually plays into the hands of Pats' opponents.

 

[nothumb]

If the o/u is 15, isn't 15 wins a push? In that case I would be hammering the under. My guess is you're really asking which side you take if the line is 14.5. My answer is I probably am not giving action there, but gun to my head I'm still taking the under. In part because if the Pats are going to lose, it's more likely they lose before the last week of the season, making that game pretty meaningless and causing them to rest their starters. For them to go exactly 15-1 they probably need to go into week 17 undefeated and lose (or I guess still be competing with another one loss team for HFA, but I do not see any other team going into week 17 with just one loss). I actually think the Pats are more likely to go undefeated this season than they are to win 15. But both of those are much less likely than 14 or 13 wins.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I wouldn't be at all shocked if they went undefeated. They are the best team in the league and will be favorites to win every game. I don't expect them to run the table and its most likely not going to happen but I wouldn't be shocked.

And yes I fully realize we are playing a stupid game of semantics with the word "shocked". Buts it's Wednesday night, what else do I have to do.

 

[amarshal2]

If the o/u is 15, isn't 15 wins a push? In that case I would be hammering the under. My guess is you're really asking which side you take if the line is 14.5. My answer is I probably am not giving action there, but gun to my head I'm still taking the under. In part because if the Pats are going to lose, it's more likely they lose before the last week of the season, making that game pretty meaningless and causing them to rest their starters. For them to go exactly 15-1 they probably need to go into week 17 undefeated and lose (or I guess still be competing with another one loss team for HFA, but I do not see any other team going into week 17 with just one loss). I actually think the Pats are more likely to go undefeated this season than they are to win 15. But both of those are much less likely than 14 or 13 wins.

All good points.

I butchered the part where Belichick probably rests his starters. My issue was with giving odds on victory vs future opponents that treats the Pats like a true talent level 12 win team -- I think it's too conservative.

The rest of my post should be read as if you expect BB to try and win every game.

 

[weeba]

From r/nfl. On average, Pats have had a 99% chance of winning a game with ~38% of the game remaining (22.8 minutes, or 1.5 quarters)
 

 
According to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201510290nwe.htm, we first hit 99% right before halftime (29 seconds left in Q2)

 

[DJnVa]

How is a 12-0 lead in second quarter a 96% win probability? Is it really that rare that a team comes from down 12 points?

 

[Dogman]

It may be much more complicated than this but points per possession, taking into account home/away, quality of opponent, weather, etc. may be the leading indicator.
 
Then again, who knows.

 

[Marciano490]

Close the thread, we're getting Megatron!
 
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2015/10/30/detroit-lions-calvin-johnson-patriots/74880672/

 

[Dogman]

I love this quote: "The trade, according to Garber, "almost makes too much sense". 
 
He is right, it almost makes too much sense.  Ignore this nonsense : " an unsustainable $20.5 million salary cap hit this year, $24 million the next and $21 million in 2017, with no guaranteed money due" and "for a second round pick".
 
Let's do it and screw the next five years. 

 

[bankshot1]

Close the thread, we're getting Megatron!
 
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2015/10/30/detroit-lions-calvin-johnson-patriots/74880672/

and that's why the Detroit Free Press is "free".
 
Garbage.

 

[Marciano490]

I love this quote: "The trade, according to Garber, "almost makes too much sense". 
 
He is right, it almost makes too much sense.  Ignore this nonsense : " an unsustainable $20.5 million salary cap hit this year, $24 million the next and $21 million in 2017, with no guaranteed money due" and "for a second round pick".
 
Let's do it and screw the next five years. 

 
My favorite part was the paragraph about how dominant we are, but hey we could probably use a declining, oft-injured WR because we could be even more dominant if we double down on our strengths instead of focusing on any weaknesses. 

 

[Jettisoned]

They've had the best offense in the league through 7 games while missing Lafell for the first 5.  WR is probably the one part of the roster they don't need to think about at this point.  A cornerback or offensive tackle would be a much better use of a draft pick.

 

[j44thor]

Why would we give up a second for Megatron when we can sign mallet and flip him for Fitzgerald?

 

[DJnVa]

It may be much more complicated than this but points per possession, taking into account home/away, quality of opponent, weather, etc. may be the leading indicator.
 
Then again, who knows.

 
 
Even weirder:
 
Up 12 in 2nd quarter (around 30 second mark): 98.2% to win
Up 12 in 3rd quarter: (11:30 left): 95.9% to win

 

[Seels]

This team would kick the shit out of Carolina on a neutral field. There is nothing that team does that is impressive aside from their front 7. That team has played one of the shittier schedules in the league, and one win against a struggling Seahawks team convinces me of nothing.
 
Cincinatti looks good but I'm jumping on the bandwagon til they prove it. Literally nothing they can do over the regular season will have me as a believer.
 
The Packers are incredible and are obviously the 1b to New England's 1a, even if they lose this weekend.

 

[JerBear]

 
 
Even weirder:
 
Up 12 in 2nd quarter (around 30 second mark): 98.2% to win
Up 12 in 3rd quarter: (11:30 left): 95.9% to win

Who had possession and where was the ball at those points?

 

[BaseballJones]

Halfway through the season, here's how I'd rank the teams....
 
Tier 1 - The Unbeatens
1.  New England
2.  Denver
3.  Cincinnati
4.  Carolina
 
Denver really impressed me last night.  The Pats are still the most complete team, IMO.  Cincy and Denver are basically 2 and 2a.  Carolina is solid.  
 
Tier 2 - The Contenders
5.  Green Bay
6.  Arizona
7.  Seattle
8.  Atlanta
 
The Packers were banged up last night so I'm not going to kill them too badly.  They are probably better than Carolina but I'm still putting them one spot below.  These four teams will be a pain to play.  I think Seattle is starting to get its act together and could be a nightmare matchup down the stretch.  But they won't get HFA, which is huge for them come playoff time.  
 
Tier 3 - The Up-and-Downers
9.  Minnesota
10. NY Giants
11. Indianapolis
12. Oakland
13. New Orleans
14. NY Jets
15. Pittsburgh
16. St. Louis
17. Philadelphia
18. Dallas
 
I don't see any of these teams being a serious threat to win it all, especially given the injuries these teams have suffered.  I think Dallas will move up once Romo returns, but I can't put them any higher right now.  These teams are all decent, IMO, but nothing special.  
 
Tier 4 - The We Suck Division
19. Buffalo
20. Miami
21. Tampa Bay
22. Washington
23. Kansas City
24. San Diego
25. Jacksonville
26. Houston
27. San Francisco
28. Baltimore
29. Cleveland
30. Chicago
31. Tennessee
32. Detroit
 
Baltimore could move up by season's end to the Up-and-Downers division, as could San Diego - two of the most disappointing teams in the league.  Throw in KC too.  

 

[m0ckduck]

I agree for the most part... but what has Indy done to deserve the #11 spot? They have exactly zero impressive wins under their belt, will soon be 3-7 (Carolina, Denver and @ATL are next opponents). They might be worse than the Chargers.

 

[BaseballJones]

I agree for the most part... but what has Indy done to deserve the #11 spot? They have exactly zero impressive wins under their belt, will soon be 3-7 (Carolina, Denver and @ATL are next opponents). They might be worse than the Chargers.

 
Don't fret too much about where most of those teams are placed.  In many respects, you can throw them into a hat and pull their names out randomly.  

 

[tims4wins]

Mostly agree except Atlanta - that team is NOT a contender
 
Pittsburgh, despite being 4-4, is far more of a contender IMO

 

[BaseballJones]

Mostly agree except Atlanta - that team is NOT a contender
 
Pittsburgh, despite being 4-4, is far more of a contender IMO

 
I would have agreed except for the Bell injury.  That's a huge blow to them.  But I guess I agree on Atlanta.  I will never believe they truly can win it all.

 

[tims4wins]

True enough on Bell, that was a big blow for them. Wish they had pulled off the win yesterday to give Cincy a loss.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Halfway through the season, here's how I'd rank the teams....

 
We're not halfway through the season yet.

 

[alydar]

New England​

Denver​

Cincinnati​

@ Broncos (1698)​

Patriots (1750)​

@ Broncos (1698)​

@ Giants (1506)​

Bengals (1666)​

@ Cardinals (1617)​

@ Jets (1481)​

@ Steelers (1563)​

Steelers (1563)​

Eagles (1542)​

@ Colts (1500)​

Rams (1499)​

@ Dolphins (1473)​

Raiders (1459)​

@ Browns (1369)​

Bills (1489)​

@ Chargers (1440)​

Ravens (1498)​

@ Texans (1450)​

Chiefs (1540)​

Browns (1369)​

Redskins (1376)​

Chargers (1440)​

Texans (1450)​

Titans (1299)​

@ Bears (1376)​

@ 49ers (1440)​

Table of remaining opponents for the three AFC unbeatens, ranked by my personal opinion of hard to easy for each team, with 538's ELO rating in parentheses just for some other metric.

Have to think that 14 wins will be required to guarantee a bye, that's nuts.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Indy belongs firmly planted in the we suck division.