The past couple of weeks we've heard all kinds of theories as to why the Pats lost to the Jets...psychological analysis, etc. Lots of it is total nonsense. I'd like to address three nonsense myths arising from the post-game analysis.
Nonsense Myth #1 - The Patriots were flat.
Above all else, this nonsense myth drives me crazy. The Jets got the ball first and immediately went nowhere. 5 plays, 25 yards, 16 of which were on one completion. Drive over. The Pats get the ball back and just slice right through the Jets. 7 plays, 56 yards. First and ten from the Jets' 28. Easy screen pass that he's hit a million times, but Brady overthrows it and Harris returns the INT to the Pats' 12.
You're thinking, crap, 7-0 Jets. Actually, you were probably thinking that as Harris ran down the sideline uncontested. But give credit to Crumpler who ran him down and prevented the TD. If they were flat, no way Crumpler makes that kind of hustle play. Anyway, at that point, the Jets are in prime position, and they promptly get stuffed. Greene off right tackle for -3 yards. Short pass to Tomlinson for -5 yards. Two plays, -8 yards. LT gets a run of 8 yards setting up the FG....which Folk clanks. HUGE stop by the Patriots. Fired up. No way they're flat.
Pats then proceed to march down the field again. 11 plays, 63 yards. A little bit of everything. 18 yards of running by Lawfirm, 5 yards of running by Woodhead. Two short passes to Welker and Woodhead for a combined 13 yards. Deep pass to Crumpler down the middle for 28 yards. All sets up a 2nd and 5 from the Jets' 7. Brady throws a pass to Crumpler in the end zone and he drops it. Ok, 3rd and 5 from the 7. Brady gets sacked. Crap. Ok, kick the FG. Pats lead 3-0.
Jets get the ball and again do nothing with it. 6 plays, 15 yards, nothing more than 6 yards. Only on the Pats' 3rd drive did they get slowed down, and after that the Jets, starting with great field position, marched down for their first score.
But for the first 16:22 of the game (all of the first quarter plus 1:22 of the second), here were the stats:
Jets - 3 possessions, 15 plays, 40 yds, 2.7 yards per play, 0 points, average of 13 yds gained per possession
Pats - 2 possessions, 18 plays, 119 yds, 6.6 yards per play, 3 points, average of 60 yds gained per possession
That, my friends, is an ass-kicking. The points don't reflect it, but nobody can argue that the Pats "came out flat". Patently untrue. They dominated the Jets for a little more than the entire first quarter.
Nonsense Myth #2 - Benching Wes Welker hurt them
Welker was benched for the first offensive possession. And what did the Pats do? They marched right down the field. Since they didn't score, it's easy to say that Welker's absence was the reason. Wilfork said on WEEI that he didn't even know that Welker was benched. I'm sure there were plenty of guys that weren't even aware of it, so psychologically it didn't impact them. And it sure didn't keep them from moving the ball. Maybe if he's in the game Brady doesn't throw the pick, b/c maybe there's a different call made. But we can blame the turnover on Brady, plain and simple. Horrible throw on a play he takes care of 99 out of 100 times.
Nonsense Myth #3 - The Patriots were overrated and exposed
The assumption behind this nonsense myth is that the better team *always* wins, and if you lose, you've been "exposed" for what you really are - a weaker team. Total crap. They actually play the games for a reason. Often - not all the time, obviously, but often enough - the better team loses. If the 2001 Pats played the 2001 Rams 10 times, I really think the Rams win 6-7 of them (maybe more). The 1999 UConn Huskies beat a *great* Duke team 77-74 to win the basketball championship. If they play that game 10 times, Duke probably wins 8 of them. In a single-elimination format, even great teams have to play well every time or they're going to fall.
Over the course of a 16-game grind, the cream rises to the top. Since 2001, here's how the #1 seeds in each conference have fared:
2001
- AFC: Pit (13-3) lost to #2 NE (11-5) in AFCCG
- NFC: StL (14-2) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to NE
2002
- AFC: Oak (11-5) won the AFCCG, lost in the SB to TB
- NFC: TB (12-4) won the NFCCG, won the SB
2003
- AFC: NE (14-2) won the AFCCG, won the SB
- NFC: Phi (12-4) lost to #3 Car (11-5) in the NFCCG
2004
- AFC: Pit (15-1) lost to #2 NE (14-2) in the AFCCG
- NFC: Phi (13-3) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to NE
2005
- AFC: Ind (14-2) lost to #5 Pit (11-5) in the divisional round
- NFC: Sea (13-3) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to Pit
2006
- AFC: SD (14-2) lost to #4 NE (12-4) in the divisional round
- NFC: Chi (13-3) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to Ind (#3 in the AFC)
2007
- AFC: NE (16-0) won the AFCCG, lost in the SB to NYG
- NFC: Dal (13-3) lost to #5 NYG in the divisional round
2008
- AFC: Ten (13-3) lost to #6 Bal (12-4) in the divisional round
- NFC: NYG (12-4) lost to #6 Phi (9-6-1) in the divisional round
2009
- AFC: Ind (14-2) won the AFCCG, lost in the SB to NO
- NFC: NO (13-3) won the NFCCG, won the SB
2010
- AFC: NE (14-2) lost to #6 NYJ (11-5) in the divisional round
- NFC: Atl (13-3) lost to #6 GB (10-6) in the divisional round
Summary: In the past 10 years, the #1 seeds (20 teams total) have advanced to the Super Bowl 10 times. 50%. And these teams are the best in their conferences and have the home-field advantage. Seven of the twenty #1 seeds (35%) didn't even make it out of their first game (divisional round) alive. Total record of the #1 seeds in the past 10 years: 26-17 (.605). That's a good record, but it means that the #1 seeds - even given all their advantages (a week to rest, home field, etc.) - lose *40%* of their games in the playoffs. A #1 seed has won the Super Bowl just 3 times in the past 10 years.
These teams aren't "exposed". They just lost a game. Since no team has gone undefeated over the course of a full season and playoffs since 1972, every single SB champion, and every single #1 seed, has lost at least a game during the season at some point. So they've proven they can lose.
A .605 winning percentage over a 16-game season = 9.7 wins. Round up and call it 10. But the average regular season record of the #1 seeds in the past 10 years is slightly better than 13-3 (.831). Yet they win in the playoffs only at a .605 rate. Why? The answer should be patently obvious: They are playing much better teams in the playoffs.
Let's analyze this from this year's perspective.
ATLANTA
- Atlanta's regular season schedule had 16 games against teams that finished a combined 124-132 (.484). They went 13-3 (.813) against this schedule.
- They went 5-3 (.625) against teams with a winning record.
- They went 4-3 (.571) against teams that made the playoffs.
- The combined record of the teams that made the NFC playoffs was 62-34 (.646).
NEW ENGLAND
- NE's regular season schedule had 16 games against teams that finished a combined 129-127 (.504). They went 14-2 (.875) against this schedule.
- They went 7-1 (.875) against teams with a winning record.
- They went 6-1 (.857) against teams that made the playoffs.
- The combined record of the teams that made the AFC playoffs was 69-27 (.719).
The Pats this year did extraordinarily well against the good teams, but still, it's much more difficult to play a slate of top-caliber teams than it is a schedule sprinkled in with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Atlanta is a good example. Notice how their winning percentage drops with the caliber of team they play.
The point is this: Nothing about the Patriots got "exposed" on Sunday. They played a very, very good team that played a very good game, and the Pats didn't play as well as they normally do. That obviously happens, even to #1 seeds, an awful lot (40% of the time in the playoffs). We knew how the Pats could be beaten - if Brady gets pressured by the defense without needing to blitz, allowing them to leave a lot of guys in coverage. Most teams can't do that. The Giants did it in the SB and the Jets were able to do it on Sunday. If you do that and play mistake-free football yourselves, you have a good chance to win. Most teams *want* to be able to do it, but the Pats are good enough to fight that off 90% of the time. Sunday was the 10% that they couldn't.
The Patriots were not "overrated" in that they deserved to be the #1 seed and they were the clear favorite to beat the Jets. They should have been the favorite because they proved over the course of the regular season to be the better team. But that doesn't mean that it was a lock that they'd win every playoff game against stiff competition. Only 3 #1 seeds in the past 10 years have managed to win it all. It's damned hard to do, even if you have the advantages that go with being the #1 seed.
No comments:
Post a Comment