Over the course of a football season every team benefits from and is hurt by statistically unlikely events. Last year the Patriots were helped by a unusual TD/INT ratio. They were also hurt by other events including an unusual number of players on IR. The Jets also had their anomalies. For example a lot of Sanchez's improvement over his first season can be attributed to an NFL leading number of potential interceptions dropped by his opponents. So I think it is very foolish to predict that one team or the other will benefit from a reversion to the mean. What is much more likely is that both teams will both be hurt and helped by multiple reversions that occur over the course of the season.
Speaking for myself, I think a "come back to earth" sentiment is reasonable in the sense that (as slimjasi said) the Pats' turnover margin was just ridiculous last year, and it seems extremely unlikely that they could do it again. With that turnover margin (and basically no turnovers in almost all of their games) it's not surprising that they had few games that were even close. The randomness isn't only obvious "lucky" plays - it's the ball carrier juggling a ball but not losing it, a receiver fumbling out of bounds instead of inbounds, etc. Those don't appear in the scoresheet, but change a game in fundamental ways. I think it is easily possible that the Pats offense will be just as good in a "true quality" sense, and the defense could be better, and yet they win "only" 12 games just because the bounces don't go their way as much. It is certainly consistent with decades of past results in the NFL. And notice that I said they could easily win 12 games, which is still almost always good enough to win a division. I think the vast majority of people here still think they're going to be a top team as long as Brady is a top QB - he's genuinely that good. I think it's much harder to see exactly what the Jets will do. As I've said in other threads, I think Sanchez is the key, and no one knows what he's going to do. While it's true that just about all top QBs take a big step up by year 3, it's also true that the QBs who don't become top QBs are the ones that don't. He's shown flashes of greatness, and stretches of incompetence as well. This might not be a make or break year for him, but it's a lot closer to one than the last two years were.
Sorry, but you're misinterpreting what regression to the mean is referring to. All teams are affected by randomness, but a team that achieves at an extreme high level is more likely to have benefited by the randomness than to have been hurt by it by the simple fact of them having an extreme performance. That's all that regression to the mean refers to: in a repeated setting with absolutely nothing "true" changing, the more unusually high a value is, the higher the probability is that it will decrease the next time, and the larger the magnitude of the expected decrease. This is incontrovertible theory, and as the statistics I gave showed, the data always show that it happens. It's not an absolute guarantee because it's still a probability argument, and the "true" quality of teams can change from year to year, but that's the way to bet. The weaker the correlation between performance year to year, the stronger the regression effect. Your statement that a team with an extreme performance (either high or low) is no more likely to be affected by regression to the mean than a team with a less extreme performance is simply not true. Wikipedia actually has a very nice discussion of regression to the mean.
With all the whirlwind free agency and player movement, the direction of the AFC East will be defined most by Mark Sanchez. Forget about Brady's stats, we defined deviation from the mean last year in end of game comeback victories. New England will have an offense that will give them the opportunity to win just about any game and we will have a defense that does the same for us. Is Mark Sanchez the quarterback we hope and expect him to be or is he the quarterback NE fans hope and expect him to be? That is the question. We should get a definitive answer this year.
Oh, no question that the Pats will still have an elite offense. But last year it was operating at a historically dominant efficiency level. Going 11 games without turning the ball over is simply absurd. Equally absurd is going the entire year without a running back losing a fumble. The Pats will still score a shitload of points and be a great team. But none of this changes the fact that they are unlikely to be 14-2 or better again this season.
I understand that Brady will almost certaintly have a "worse" statistical year... as long as you realize we are not talking about 2007 Derek Anderson here. The guy has never shown any signs of regressing towards an "average" QB... his numbers just bounce around within the numbers that you expect from a Pro-bowl starter. His performance is almost guaranteed to be at a high enough level that our defense will be the determining factor in whether the team 'improves' or not.
I don't think anyone would expect brady to put up average qb numbers. I also don't expect that he will go basically the whole season without throwing an int or fumbling.
Our #1 RB has never fumbled in his career. It's not exactly fair to act as though last year was a random variation or occurance.
it's also not exactly fair to say "in his career" when last year was his first year getting a significant workload. in 2009, he had a grand total of 26 carries. i think it's safe to say he will eventually fumble the ball. as for fred taylor.. he does fumble the ball. he didn't last year. that is a random variation or occurrence.
Fred Taylor had 43 rushing attempts last year, and will be lucky to see any this year. Green-Ellis had 74 attempts in 2008 when Maroney was injured and never fumbled then either. He also never fumbled in college (and according to some reports HS either). Shonn Greene has 30 fewer total attempts and 6 fumbles in his career. Are you attributing this difference to luck or random variation?
I'm jumping in late here but I assume you mean Green-Ellis, because in 09 Maroney fumbled 3 times and lost all 3. Green-Ellis has played in 37 regular season games, that is pretty impressive. With Bray at QB pretty much any RB can have a good year, I'd say that RB is by far your weakest position on offense. We'll see how the 25 RBs you drafted turnout though. lol
Our running game was successful last year in the redzone where the passing game cannot spread out the defense, and also in other obvious running situations. Honestly, I think that our running game is slightly underrated, and that our interior OL (Koppen & Connolly in particular) are the weakest area in our offense. Since this thread is about improvement, I'd like to point out that last year our glaring weaknesses on defense were DL and the Arrington/Butler CB#2 combo. Bodden's return solves the latter. Our DL will certainly look different this year at the very least. I think it will be nearly impossible for us not to improve in this area, but whether it becomes the huge strength that many of us expect remains to be seen. Our defense looks pretty solid in every other area.
Yeah I agree about your dline, and I just addressed that in another thread. basically I just said it was a wise move to bring in Vets in this shortened offseason, they'll need less time to acclimate to BB. Also, I still expect Fat Albert to be a bad move and that will be proven during the year. Shaun Ellis was more of a brain pick signing IMO then skill, but if used sparingly he can still contribute.
