To be fair, the Pats haven’t exactly faced the toughest schedule either. Here’s their opponent rundown so far:
1-6 Jets
3-3 Chargers
2-4 Bills
2-4 Bengals
3-3 Browns
6-1 Cowboys
0-7 Dolphins
One quality team so far. Still pretty damn impressive though. They remind of the Bill Walsh 49ers, including my utter hatred for both teams and my wishing nothing but the worst of luck to happen to them.
True, but if they go 16-0, they will have to beat not only Dallas but Indy, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and the Giants.
When making a strength-of-schedule argument, I think you should leave out games against the team your trying to evaluate. If you’re saying “look who the Dolphins played; they sucked,” those other teams are going to look worse than they are if you include the losses to the Dolphins. Did they use a similar scheduling algorithm back then, with two games against teams within your division? That 8-and-6 team was probably 8-and-4 against the rest of the league, which is a pretty good record, and the Dolphins beat them twice.
Not saying they’re the best ever or not, just a mathematical pet peeve.
Careful Hal, that’s crazy talk. Let’s remember for what **team ** we are rooting.
Good point. This article doesn’t mention the method used, but does confirm an overall opponent winning percentage of .396, and cites this as one of the easiest schedules since 1950. It appears they used the basic overall wins and losses, though. And yes, the Dolphins played each division team twice, who were 7-7, 5-9, 4-9-1 and 3-11, which, while piss poor, is probably better than what the Pats division opponents will finish this year.
Actually the box of stats next to the article mentions that they did exclude the results of the Dolphins games.
I no read so good- thanks 
The Yankees? Oh yeah, we did get a playoff win this season. 
Then why use him for kick returns? Those are far more dangerous than playing from scrimmage. To limit his carries but still use him for kick returns is playing him like he’s some project backup RB you’re trying to gradually make useful to your team, it’s definitely not the way to handle your only star on offense.
I can’t find a plausible thought process behind the way they’re using him that isn’t dumb.
I personally don’t buy the argument that a “good” player shouldn’t return kicks. The chances for injury on blockers seems higher, but not on the returner. And the idea that a running play is seemingly more important than a kickoff return I don’t get either- the average kickoff return, an average player gets 20 yards, the average per rush is like 4.0. Plus kickoffs seem to have a better chance of a big play than your average rush. To me, every play is important, you can’t discount kick returns for whatever reason.
I don’t mind sending your star in for a kick return in a critical situation. For example, AP returning the last kick of the game last week in a tied game with little time left on the clock is smart football.
But injury risk does seem higher. Everyone is moving at a very fast pace… the returner is at full speed in one direction, and the coverage guys can be at full speed in the other direction. This doesn’t happen all that often on plays from scrimmage. And you’ve got more fringe guys on special teams acting like kamikazes to prove their worth to their teams. Some of the nastiest, most brutal players in the NFL are career special teams guys.
The average kick return length vs the average rush isn’t such a big deal. Consider that there aren’t many people in the world who can be a 4.4 yard/carry type running back, but there are plenty of competant speedsters who can be 23 yard/return guys. The relative value, and dropoff from replacement, are big factors. The value of a good running back is way higher than a good kick returner.
But my point was… if he’s returning kicks, then it should be because they realize that he’s such a dangerous weapon that they should get the ball in his hands at every opportunity. But if that’s their line of thought, it doesn’t explain the lack of carries.
Or, if he lacks carries because there’s injury/weardown concern, then he shouldn’t be returning kicks.
The “perfect season” hype starts up every year when a team gets off to a 6-0 or 7-0 start, but what happens when/if they get to 14-0 and have home field advantage locked up? The starters are benched to rest up for the playoffs, and the last two games become a crap shoot, especially if their opponents are fighting for a playoff spot or home field advantage (and this year’s Patriots end the season in NY against the 5-2 Giants).
I think a team might make exceptions to resting their starters if they’re 14-0. Going perfect is a pretty big deal, a mark on history. A coach could even rationalize (and possibly even correctly) that the confidence from going 16-0 would be worth more in the playoffs than the rest from the 2 weeks. And winning 14 and then losing two could be deflating and demoralizing.
Yeah, I think Belichick will keep going for the throat if he ends up at 14-0.
I read an article about how Belichek will go for the kill on the 14-0 season, on trying to get Tom Brady the TD record and right now he is scheming a way to get Gostokowski a 9 FG game. He just wants to rub into everyone’s faces. Or at least that is the impression
Wow, did you see your Defense? Wow, they kept banging from start to finish. Warner was looking pretty bad trying to play with the brace on his arm, those backhanded handoffs were crazy as well.
Damn fine thing to see them playing with toughness and passion. Whis and Grimm have started a damn good thing.
I still see them getting to the playoffs and next year is going to be a hell of a season.
Osip
What we really need is an offensive coordinator. The defense looks good when they don’t have to play most of the game by themselves.
The damned Chargers stole him, and we see how well that worked out for them.
Yeah that’ll teach 'em, meanwhile we suck while Hostler learns on the job.