Jump to content



 
Photo

It sure seems like NE gets all of its toughest games at home...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
37 replies to this topic

#1 cmgww

cmgww
  • Member
  • 1310 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:35 AM

Most of this years toughest games for the Pats have been at home. Houston, Denver, San Fran upcoming. Does this team ever have to play a tough team on the road? The two I see are Baltimore and Seattle, both losses. I know its all determined by a big formula, but I wonder what their record would be if those 3 games were on the road instead of at home. Seems that way every year too...just my thoughts, not trying to start a conspiracy theory
In it to win it since 1992....COLTS fan first, Manning fan 2nd

Preseason Live: Indianapolis ColtsColts Football Starts Now. Don't Miss a Moment!

#2 Bogie

Bogie
  • Member
  • 2130 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:26 AM

I heard Saints fans complaining about GB for the same thing last year. I don't think NE would have lost to Denver or Houston on the road.

okv09w.jpg


#3 krunk

krunk
  • Member
  • 3361 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:51 AM

I know we've been playing New England on the road the last couple of years for some reason as well.

#4 Stephen

Stephen
  • Member
  • 2635 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:26 AM

I know we've been playing New England on the road the last couple of years for some reason as well.

thats because ne played us at home a number of years before they switched the games back to ne

#5 ReMeDy

ReMeDy
  • Member
  • 2032 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:55 AM

On a separate note, here's another nugget... If Indy has to play New England AGAIN for another year, then I'm jumping ship and forming my own football league. Peyton's gone and the rivalry left with him, so let Denver and New England play each other every year.

There's nothing parity-driven about a young "restructuring" team, like Indy, forced to play a dominant established superpower, like New England, every year.

Posted Image

Charles "Chuck" Pagano ~ Master Defensive Tactician.


#6 dynasty13

dynasty13
  • Member
  • 431 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

On a separate note, here's another nugget... If Indy has to play New England AGAIN for another year, then I'm jumping ship and forming my own football league. Peyton's gone and the rivalry left with him, so let Denver and New England play each other every year.

There's nothing parity-driven about a young "restructuring" team, like Indy, forced to play a dominant established superpower, like New England, every year.


Denver and New England WILL play next year since both won the division. Indy and New England will not unless the Colts find a way to win the division over Houston.

"Tonight, a dynasty is born, baby" - Rams receiver Ricky Proehl, February 3, 2002

g0ew.jpg


#7 dynasty13

dynasty13
  • Member
  • 431 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:01 AM

Most of this years toughest games for the Pats have been at home. Houston, Denver, San Fran upcoming. Does this team ever have to play a tough team on the road? The two I see are Baltimore and Seattle, both losses. I know its all determined by a big formula, but I wonder what their record would be if those 3 games were on the road instead of at home. Seems that way every year too...just my thoughts, not trying to start a conspiracy theory


Nobody was complaining when the Pats were 3-3 and they already played Baltimore and Seattle away. Besides...3 tough games at home vs 2 tough games away isnt exactly an overly skewed ratio that should be raising any red flags for anyone.

"Tonight, a dynasty is born, baby" - Rams receiver Ricky Proehl, February 3, 2002

g0ew.jpg


#8 bayone

bayone

    bayone

  • Member
  • 7005 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:15 AM

On a separate note, here's another nugget... If Indy has to play New England AGAIN for another year, then I'm jumping ship and forming my own football league. Peyton's gone and the rivalry left with him, so let Denver and New England play each other every year.

There's nothing parity-driven about a young "restructuring" team, like Indy, forced to play a dominant established superpower, like New England, every year.


I belive unless us colts win out & take division we wont play them next year, Texans will s both as of now are first place teams, this year we played them as they were in division the afc south played as a whole , they play Jaxsonville in 2 weeks and started seasoin with titans
Forgive any typos, try to catch, but have multiple progressive disabilities

#9 bayone

bayone

    bayone

  • Member
  • 7005 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:16 AM

Denver and New England WILL play next year since both won the division. Indy and New England will not unless the Colts find a way to win the division over Houston.


u got that in before me, quick on the triggere my friend , see my comment above,

though I mustr admit I quioted the same comment without looking to see if answered, ME BAD
Forgive any typos, try to catch, but have multiple progressive disabilities

#10 cmgww

cmgww
  • Member
  • 1310 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:21 AM

Nobody was complaining when the Pats were 3-3 and they already played Baltimore and Seattle away. Besides...3 tough games at home vs 2 tough games away isnt exactly an overly skewed ratio that should be raising any red flags for anyone.


Well hindsight is 20/20 obviously... but Seattle at the time wasn't exactly considered a powerhouse team. Tough place to play? Sure. But not too many expected them to be as good as they are. Baltimore was a rematch game from last season. I am not complaining or anything, the Pats are rolling as usual. I was just pointing out that their toughest tests nearly always seem to happen in their own backyard. I cant say anything about the playoffs; they earn it and get home field advantage in most years. I guess I would like to see them on the road more against the top teams on their schedule (the 49ers for example).
In it to win it since 1992....COLTS fan first, Manning fan 2nd

#11 GoPats

GoPats
  • Member
  • 2428 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:10 PM

Who you play, and the home-and-away aspects, of NFL schedules are all predetermined by set formulas. It's all based on won-loss and where you finished in your division the prior year. The only variable that the NFL really controls on a year-to-year basis is when you play which teams.

Point being, perception is what it is. The Patriots have a lot of nationally televised, prime-time home games, so it probably seems more skewed than it really is.

#12 PrincetonTiger

PrincetonTiger
  • Memb ns
  • 15097 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

Who you play, and the home-and-away aspects, of NFL schedules are all predetermined by set formulas. It's all based on won-loss and where you finished in your division the prior year. The only variable that the NFL really controls on a year-to-year basis is when you play which teams.

Point being, perception is what it is. The Patriots have a lot of nationally televised, prime-time home games, so it probably seems more skewed than it really is.


probably true
Onward Princeton Forward Princeton

PrincetonTiger77

#13 cmgww

cmgww
  • Member
  • 1310 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:44 PM

I agree...it is probably more perception than anything. As I stated in my original post, I know schedules are set by formulas...
In it to win it since 1992....COLTS fan first, Manning fan 2nd

#14 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2655 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:51 PM

I agree...it is probably more perception than anything. As I stated in my original post, I know schedules are set by formulas...


Which is not to say that it happened at an opportune time this season with Houston,SF,and Denver at Gillette:) Other years those teams might not have been as good.

#15 shakedownstreet

shakedownstreet
  • Member
  • 6031 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:02 PM

belichick has videos that goodell doesn't want anyone to see

#16 Andy

Andy
  • Member
  • 8849 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

They always have the easiest schedule each year...

Andy
Writer for: The Montreal Gazette, and various other websites

Posted Image


#17 gspdx

gspdx
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:24 PM

I would like to see the Colts play NE next year. Most likely won't happen, but you got to play winners to be winners. I would prefer the game be in indy though :thmup:

#18 shakedownstreet

shakedownstreet
  • Member
  • 6031 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:30 PM

I would like to see the Colts play NE next year. Most likely won't happen, but you got to play winners to be winners. I would prefer the game be in indy though :thmup:


we played the pats as division winners last season in foxborough. so if we miraculously win the division this year, the evil empire patriots will be coming to the holy land indianapolis

#19 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2655 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:01 PM

otherwise you have to wait until 2015 to play the almighty Patriots :)

schedule thru 2019
http://www.johnnyroa...future_afce.htm

#20 shakedownstreet

shakedownstreet
  • Member
  • 6031 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

otherwise you have to wait until 2015 to play the almighty Patriots :)

schedule thru 2019
http://www.johnnyroa...future_afce.htm


by then they will be in the early stages of a long slow decline into obscure oblivion. even espn will stop talking about them :)

#21 subvet

subvet

    Stand by....

  • Member
  • 1158 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

Who you play, and the home-and-away aspects, of NFL schedules are all predetermined by set formulas. It's all based on won-loss and where you finished in your division the prior year. The only variable that the NFL really controls on a year-to-year basis is when you play which teams.

Point being, perception is what it is. The Patriots have a lot of nationally televised, prime-time home games, so it probably seems more skewed than it really is.

So did the Colts, the opponent is up to the formula you mentioned, the time is network choice. Remember how Colts games got flexed out of prime viewing last year?

Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway-John Wayne

gallery_3_63_39724.jpg


#22 shakedownstreet

shakedownstreet
  • Member
  • 6031 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:22 PM

i'm confused. is this the denver broncos forum or the new england patriots forum?

#23 ViriLudant

ViriLudant
  • Member
  • 1408 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

i'm confused. is this the denver broncos forum or the new england patriots forum?


Yes.

#24 The Fish

The Fish
  • Member
  • 2353 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:30 PM

Yes.


"My cats cat breath smells like cat food"

#25 Fx Stryker

Fx Stryker
  • Member
  • 5572 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:33 PM

i'm confused. is this the denver broncos forum or the new england patriots forum?


Well seeing there is a WHOLE section dedicated to the Colts here I think it's a Colts forum. Unless you want the Colt threads in NFL General too.

#26 GoPats

GoPats
  • Member
  • 2428 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

So did the Colts, the opponent is up to the formula you mentioned, the time is network choice. Remember how Colts games got flexed out of prime viewing last year?


I think the dates are sorted out by the league and the individual teams (to avoid conflicts with multi-use stadiums) and then the networks contribute to the times, but I'm not 100% sure.

#27 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 9125 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:56 PM

I will tell you something that I noticed.

The AFC East vs AFC South.

Year 2003 - we played the entire AFC East, 2006 - we played the entire AFC East, so did we in Year 2009.

So, we played the Pats in Indy in 2003 when we played the entire AFC East (Willie McGinnest fake injury game :)), we played the Pats in Foxboro when we played the ENTIRE AFC East in 2006 and in Indy in 2009 next (4th & 2 game), and in Foxboro in 2012. So, the alternating of locations there has been done right there.

However, when there is a year when we have had to play the Patriots by virtue of them finishing in the AFC East at the same spot, here is the pattern:

2004 - played the Pats in Foxboro
2005 - played the Pats in Foxboro

2007 - played the Pats in Indy
2008 - played the Pats in Indy

2010 - played the Pats in Foxboro
2011 - played the Pats in Foxboro

This AFC East vs AFC South matchup when we dont have to play the entire AFC East is what I have an issue with because it gives one division potentially 3 games in a row (potentially 3 years in a row) at home. So, the Pats played 2004, 2005, 2006 in Foxboro, and the Colts played 2007, 2008, 2009 at Indy, and 2010, 2011 and 2012 at Foxboro. I am not in favor of that.

Guess what, it is the same with the AFC East vs AFC West too (potentially 3 years in a row). So, Peyton will play at Foxboro in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and will not be able to host Brady till 2015 if they both continue winning their divisions.

That one, I have an issue with. Why not alternate those AFC East vs other division matchups as well?

#28 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2655 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:00 PM

by then they will be in the early stages of a long slow decline into obscure oblivion. even espn will stop talking about them :)


yeah. Brady 38 or so...eh who knows.
Belichick...60 something........he'll still have his marbles.....

Then again we could match division standing in 2013 or 2014.

Nope..you haven't quite seen the last of the NE giant :)

#29 shakedownstreet

shakedownstreet
  • Member
  • 6031 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

Well seeing there is a WHOLE section dedicated to the Colts here I think it's a Colts forum. Unless you want the Colt threads in NFL General too.


^^^^
insert sense of humor here

#30 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2655 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

I think the dates are sorted out by the league and the individual teams (to avoid conflicts with multi-use stadiums) and then the networks contribute to the times, but I'm not 100% sure.


thats pretty much it. Its not so easy either. They get a schedule..now pick the weeks...woops gotta fit this and that team in now.

#31 TAPLOOK

TAPLOOK
  • Member
  • 1091 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

The Patriots have an easy schedule thing is a bunch of crap and always has been. 16 team are at .500 or below right now. The nuts that say the Patriots have it easy must think everyone has it easy. At years end the team that plays the hardest schedule will have played a combined winning percentage of around .540 and the team with the easiest around .500...not a big spread there. Last year people said the same thing about them and I believe they played 6 playoff teams in the regular season. It's the same formula (and a good one) for every team in the league. That .540/.500 is pretty consistent year to year.





#32 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2655 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

I will tell you something that I noticed.

The AFC East vs AFC South.

Year 2003 - we played the entire AFC East, 2006 - we played the entire AFC East, so did we in Year 2009.

So, we played the Pats in Indy in 2003 when we played the entire AFC East (Willie McGinnest fake injury game :)), we played the Pats in Foxboro when we played the ENTIRE AFC East in 2006 and in Indy in 2009 next (4th & 2 game), and in Foxboro in 2012. So, the alternating of locations there has been done right there.

However, when there is a year when we have had to play the Patriots by virtue of them finishing in the AFC East at the same spot, here is the pattern:

2004 - played the Pats in Foxboro
2005 - played the Pats in Foxboro

2007 - played the Pats in Indy
2008 - played the Pats in Indy

2010 - played the Pats in Foxboro
2011 - played the Pats in Foxboro

This AFC East vs AFC South matchup when we dont have to play the entire AFC East is what I have an issue with because it gives one division potentially 3 games in a row (potentially 3 years in a row) at home. So, the Pats played 2004, 2005, 2006 in Foxboro, and the Colts played 2007, 2008, 2009 at Indy, and 2010, 2011 and 2012 at Foxboro. I am not in favor of that.

Guess what, it is the same with the AFC East vs AFC West too (potentially 3 years in a row). So, Peyton will play at Foxboro in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and will not be able to host Brady till 2015 if they both continue winning their divisions.

That one, I have an issue with. Why not alternate those AFC East vs other division matchups as well?


Phil and I noticed that a while back as some kind of wierd glitch. We never figured out why? Unless it has to do with some math I'm not gonna figure out.:) But you're right..other divisons did rotate

#33 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 9125 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

Phil and I noticed that a while back as some kind of wierd glitch. We never figured out why? Unless it has to do with some math I'm not gonna figure out. :) But you're right..other divisons did rotate


The 2-3-2 NBA Finals came about to reduce transportation and gas burdens on teams flying east when the 76ers/Celtics and Lakers were involved in the NBA Finals in the 80s, I think.

Could it be a similar reason why the AFC East gets to play the other divisions 2 years in a row at the same location when it is not playing the entire division, to reduce travel burdens on teams flying east so that they can plan ahead? Just guessing...

Or, it could be something KRAFTY??? :)

#34 GoPats

GoPats
  • Member
  • 2428 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:11 PM

I will tell you something that I noticed.

The AFC East vs AFC South.

Year 2003 - we played the entire AFC East, 2006 - we played the entire AFC East, so did we in Year 2009.

So, we played the Pats in Indy in 2003 when we played the entire AFC East (Willie McGinnest fake injury game :)), we played the Pats in Foxboro when we played the ENTIRE AFC East in 2006 and in Indy in 2009 next (4th & 2 game), and in Foxboro in 2012. So, the alternating of locations there has been done right there.

However, when there is a year when we have had to play the Patriots by virtue of them finishing in the AFC East at the same spot, here is the pattern:

2004 - played the Pats in Foxboro
2005 - played the Pats in Foxboro

2007 - played the Pats in Indy
2008 - played the Pats in Indy

2010 - played the Pats in Foxboro
2011 - played the Pats in Foxboro

This AFC East vs AFC South matchup when we dont have to play the entire AFC East is what I have an issue with because it gives one division potentially 3 games in a row (potentially 3 years in a row) at home. So, the Pats played 2004, 2005, 2006 in Foxboro, and the Colts played 2007, 2008, 2009 at Indy, and 2010, 2011 and 2012 at Foxboro. I am not in favor of that.

Guess what, it is the same with the AFC East vs AFC West too (potentially 3 years in a row). So, Peyton will play at Foxboro in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and will not be able to host Brady till 2015 if they both continue winning their divisions.

That one, I have an issue with. Why not alternate those AFC East vs other division matchups as well?


Good post Chad. I would rather see a year-to-year alternation with the home teams also. Not sure why they do it the way they do it now.

#35 Fx Stryker

Fx Stryker
  • Member
  • 5572 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:39 PM

^^^^
insert sense of humor here


Gotcha! haha

#36 JerodMayo51

JerodMayo51
  • Member
  • 663 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:57 PM

They always have the easiest schedule each year...




No they just make it look like its the easiest schedule each year

#37 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2655 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

haha good one

#38 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 9125 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:31 PM

No they just make it look like its the easiest schedule each year


Much like how Peyton won 12 games for 7 years, Colts fans should know better??? :)






COLTS TICKETS!

Single Game Tickets Available!

BUY THEM TODAY!
Join the Stampede!

Recent Status Updates

View All Updates