Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cmgww

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I get what you're driving at BLS. I just remember the nightmare known as Curtis Painter in 2011. Translation: Quality backups aren't that easy to find & there's no such thing as an elite 2nd stringer field general. They don't really exist meaning all backup QBs have flaws.    In layman's terms, when the face of your franchise goes down; you're basically screwed that calendar yr anyway because veterans off the street are injury prone with age & recovery issues & anybody worthy of your attention is locked down financially on other team rosters for the short term future. 
    • You can say that again WM. It's like some people think Jacoby will be great just because he was in the same room Brady was studying film a few times.    Look, I respect the hades out of Brady & his SB consistency. I also was amazed at how quickly Jacoby used wrist band numbers to execute our offense in short order. It just bothers me when players & coordinators under BB's coaching tree get all these job interview opportunities  & then when they leave Foxboro their clout fades too.    If anybody breaks this trend of leaving the Boston net & succeeding, Josh McDaniels will be the one to shatter this stigma IMO. [Yes, I think Josh will flourish in his 2nd HC gig too once that preferred vacancy becomes available. This happens a lot with your 2nd shot at the helm running a NFL program.]
    •   The owner of the company says 30 of 32 NFL teams use his service.       I'm sorry he didn't bring out the paper work to show it to you.     But typically,  unless there is reason to believe he's lying,  the man,  in this case,  Cris Collinsworth, gets the benefit of the doubt.   As opposed to you,   who doesn't like the service,  and just denies,  denies,  and denies.....   Oh,  and as for Chip Kelly......     Rich Dudes have lots of ways of making money.    They typically don't chose to make it by buying part of a company that, in the past,  they have openly said negative things about.      Goes to credibility.      They can invest their money elsewhere.   Kelly bought in because he likes what he sees.  
    •   None of those people talk in the 3rd person seriously.   If any of those three talk in the third perosn,   they are mocking themselves and others who do.   And having worked with on-air people who have huge talents,  I think I can say confidently that none of these three guys has an ego the way the current occupent of the White House does.     Not even close.     That man is in a league of his own.   Apologies for the political talk.    
    •     So far,  I confess I don't think of RG3 when I watch Brissett.      I think he's much more of a pocket passer than RG3 ever was.    I saw RG3 as an athlete who could play QB.      I see Brissett as a QB who has some athleticism.   Brissett is taller,  bigger,  heavier.     Not nearly the athlete but much more a physical presense.   6'4" 235 vs. 6'2" and 220.     I think Brissett is going through the normal young QB growth that most every young QB goes through.     I'd expect over time he makes fewer and fewer mistakes.       As for what we'd get for Brissett in a trade....    I don't know if you spend any time in the chat room during a game,  but this past Monday,  I spent some time there,  and when Brissett was good (1st half)  the Colts fans there had us gettng at least a 1st round draft pick for him,  and possibly even more!     I think a Day 2 pick is not far off,   he was taken in the 3rd round and demonstrated a good level of competence in a short amount of time.      I suppose it's possible he'd get only a 4,    but I don't see Brissett getting traded for a 5.     I think Ballard would much rather keep him than trade him for that.      
  • Members