52 replies to this topic

[bakahump]

1. Pats- San Fran.....the Doctor will see you now.
2.Denver- Reactionary Moving up 3 spots....but they seem like the 2nd best team right now
3.Green Bay- Getting hot?
4. SF- Last week "welcome to Miami". This week "Welcome to the show".
5. NYG- A beatdown on a dangerous NO team....they might be ahead of GB and SF right now.
6. Hou- The New Engrinch who stole Christmas and potentially the #1 seed.
7. Atl- So that record isnt so impressive now is it.
8. Baltimore- They lost by the least....but to superman evidently.
9. Wash- RGIII probably out this week so they will probably fall next week.
10. Indy- Held Serve against Tenn
11. Chi- Mayday Midway.....we are going in....
12. Pitt- Ben is Back so even with a loss they move up....I expect them to move up again next week.
13. Cinn- Ball Crushing losses will move you down...
14. Dall, Minn, Sea- One more week and they move up.
15. TB, NO and everyone else

[Dgilpin]

1. Pats
2. SF
3. Giants
4. Green Bay
5. Houston
6. Atlanta
7. Denver
8. Baltimore
9. Pittsburgh
10. Seattle
11. Chicago
12. Washington

Those are about the only teams that matter

Edited by Dgilpin, 11 December 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Stitch01]

Sort of muddled, but If I had to guess at the Super Bowl Id guess Pats-Giants. I think the Pats are clearly a half step in front of Denver and Houston as the class of the AFC and I think Green Bay has a horrible matchup problem with the NYG given their offensive line is beat to shit.

[Vertebreaker]

1. New England- Clearly the class of the league right now, have to be the SB favorites right?
2. San Francisco- I like everything about them, except their games against the Rams.
3. Green Bay- Quietly have gained steam over the past few weeks. I don't think anybody wants to play them in January.
4. Houston- A crushing loss, but they did lose to a great team, with a ton of experience, on the road. I'd take that over say, Pittsburgh's loss to SD.
5. Atlanta- Everyone seems down on them right now, but I still think they can make some noise in the playoffs.
6. Giants- Definitely one of the most talented teams, but also one of the most enigmatic.
7. Denver- Currently the most over-ratted team in the NFL. They beat the Raiders.
8. Indy- Luck could be the MVP, depending on how you interpret "Valuable."
9. Seattle- Do everything well. If they had home field advantage, they could make the Super Bowl.
10. Baltimore- Get out the lifeboats, this ship is sinking.
11. Chicago- They are the Jay Cutler of teams. Great at times, mind-bogglingly dumb at others.
12. Washington- If RG3 avoids getting killed, they will make the playoffs.
13. Cincy- I wholeheartedly believe that they will leapfrog Pittsburgh into the playoffs.
14. Pittsburgh- Got Big Ben back and they still lost to the imploding Chargers.

[abty]

NE - During their win streak, they don't have that bad game most teams have. All they do is win and adapt. Hard to find a flaw right now.
Denver - To a degree, the same thing can be said for them. Win vs Bal and NE Loss vs SF changes position for one week. Otherwise...
SF - Otherwordly defense but look out for N.E and Seattle.
Packers - Great 2 game rebound from the Giants loss although Stafford handed them this game.
Seattle - Fantastic win after a lower scoring *great* win vs Chicago.
Giants - Despite beating SF & Green Bay, inconsistency knocks them down the list. Nicks, Wilson and Kenny Smith will write their story this year.
Houston - Pretender. The #3 AFC team as of now. Get the TE's healthy and hope to face awful QB's from this point forward.
Indy - Awful defense but "all they do is win".
Atlanta - Overrated but still in line for a bye with a win vs the Giants
Washington - A rookie qb wins the game after losing RG3. Great recovery from being 3-6 but their defense is going to hold them back as is their road play.

Edited by abty, 11 December 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[SMU_Sox]

Atlanta, the epitome of sometimes you aren't as good as your record would indicate. They are a 10-15 team. They should not sniff the top 8 and yet they are going to, likely, have at least a first round bye.

[tims4wins]

If we're going by "who beats who on a neutral field"...

1. Pats
2. Denver
3. Green Bay
4. San Francisco
5. Pittsburgh (w/ healthy Ben)
6. Houston
7. NYG
8. Atlanta
9. Chicago
10. Baltimore
11. Seattle
12. Cincy
13. Colts
---
not ranking 6-6 teams or worse

Me last week. I think I was ahead of the curve on Atlanta and Houston. Need to drop Pitt, Chicago, and Bal'mer even further down.

[Vertebreaker]

How can people say Denver is the second best team? They haven't beaten anybody! Houston beat them at home! There best win is against Pittsburgh in week one! Everyone says they are different now, that they are Manning is in gear. Is it a coincidence that Manning is in gear when he is playing a steady stream of crap? After their lost to the Pats, Denver has played @SD, NO, @Cin, @CAR, SD, @KC, TB, @Oakland.

[Stitch01]

They've won six games by two scores and three other games by eight. The closest thing they have to a blowout loss was the New England game, where they were clearly outplayed but hanging around in the second-half. They have one of the two or three best QB's in history leading the offense, are fourth in points allowed, and are third in the league in scoring differential. They are currently riding an 8 game winning streak. The combined record of teams they've lost to is 32-7.

Im not sure if they are the second best team, but their resume is pretty good.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

1. NE
2. Denver
3. NYG
4. SF
5. Green Bay
6. Seattle
7. Houston
8. Pittsburgh
9. Atlanta
10. Washington
11. Baltimore
12. Chicago

I see the Patriots as the clear #1 right now, while #2-6 could go in almost any order. I give the nod to Denver and NYG because its a quarterback-dominated league and, in the end, I feel like you have to be able to throw the ball and score 25+ points on multiple occasions in the playoffs to win a title. I have questions about the ability of SF and Seattle to win those kinds of games, despite their great defenses. I also think Green Bay has a fairly weak resume and some legitimate holes - O line, running game - that even Aaron Rodgers can't paper over.

[tims4wins]

Hard for me to take Seattle too seriously - yet. They are a "fail mary" and a bogus intentional grounding penalty away from being 6-7 and outside the playoffs.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Hard for me to take Seattle too seriously - yet. They are a "fail mary" and a bogus intentional grounding penalty away from being 6-7 and outside the playoffs.

The flip side of that is that they are also a couple plays (end of the DET and MIA games) away from being 10-3 and heading for the #2 or even #1 seed in the NFC. Records are deceptive and fundamentals are more important. And this is a team that looks very much upper echelon in terms of fundamentals (likely to be #2 in total DVOA this week, +98 in point differential).

[phragle]

Week 14 DVOA Ratings

1. NE
2. SEA
3. DEN
4. SF
5. NYG
6. CHI
7. GB
8. HOU
9. CIN
10. BAL

[ragnarok725]

Hard for me to take Seattle too seriously - yet. They are a "fail mary" and a bogus intentional grounding penalty away from being 6-7 and outside the playoffs.

FWIW Seattle is the real FO darling right now - they have them playing neck and neck with the Pats over the last 8 games. They've played a tough schedule, and all their losses have been close calls.

Some big gaps have opened up between teams in our ratings, with some clear stratification through Week 14. The Patriots and Seahawks have now pulled ahead with two of the best total DVOA ratings of the last 20 years. A little bit behind those teams you will find Denver and San Francisco. Then there's a huge gap. In total DVOA, the gap between San Francisco and No. 5 Green Bay is about 13 percentage points; in weighted DVOA, the gap is between the 49ers and the No. 5 Giants, about 12 percentage points.

If there's one thing right now that FO readers should be telling other fans who don't read FO, it's this: don't sleep on the Seattle Seahawks.

Yes, yes, I know, they should be 8-6 because of the Fail Mary or Goldengate or what I prefer to call it, "REF-POCALYPSE." That's nice, but it has nothing to do with how they've been playing the last few weeks.

http://www.footballo...14-dvoa-ratings

[Super Nomario]

Week 14 DVOA Ratings

The most interesting thing to me is the Pats D at 14th, just barely below average at +0.3%.

[MarcSullivaFan]

They haven't been ranked that highly for a long time--2008?

Edit: Finished 13th in weighted defensive DVOA in 2009.

Edited by MarcSullivaFan, 11 December 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[bakahump]

So the Patriots went into a NOTORIOUSLY tough place to play and lost by 1 point after blowing a 13pt 4th quarter lead with 9:21 to play against the 2nd best team in football. All this before the "Defensive gel" and Talib.

That makes me somehow want to rank them higher then 1.

[Mugthis]

If you aggregate all the power rankings (both objective and subjective), you get this:

1. Patriots (1.9 average)
2. Broncos (3.2)
3. 49ers (3.3)
4. Texans (3.8)
5. Giants (5.9)
6. Seahawks (6.5)
7. Packers (6.8)
8. Falcons (7.3)
9. Ravens (10.4)
10. Bears (10.8)

I'd put the Patriots as the favorite, the Broncos, 49ers, Texans in the next tier, the Giants, Seahawks, Packers, Falcons in the next, and the Ravens, Bears, Redskins in the next. Steelers, Bengals, Cowboys, Colts, and Bucs and outsiders looking in.

[abty]

Giants will plummit as will the Bears and Ravens. Not sure if any other team will make a lage 'push' to the top 3-5 but one never knows...

[bankshot1]

1-Pats
2-49ers
3-Giants
4-Broncos
5-Texans
6-Packers
7-Falcons
8-Seahawks

IMO any of the top 6 can win the SB, with the Pats as just small favorites right now. As a Pats fan while I'm very aware of the 49ers punishing and hugely talented D, I'm most afraid of the Giants, as when the G-Men play their best game, they can beat the Pats (in one of THOSE games) Funny thing is that the G-Men might miss the post-season but they'd still be in my top 4.Huge game for them against Atlanta.

[abty]

Giants can beat anybody are too injured and not deep enough to handle those injuries (Bradshaw/Phillps) so they will take a hit vs the Falcons. Teams like the Packers can absorb it more as well as the Patriots. One thing I am curious about is if there is some sort of ratio that determines how much of the season, as a whole, factors into these rankings as opposed to the last week. Do I just follow the DVOA links you post to learn more about it? Or is it something that varies from one site to the next?

[wilked]

Something tells me there will be questions now...

[bowiac]

Something tells me there will be questions now...

I don't see how if you're doing a resume test, San Fran isn't #1 now.

1. 49ers
2. Patriots
3. Screw it - Seahawks
4. Broncos
5. Texans
6. Falcons
7. Packers
8. Giants
9. Bears?
10. Ravens ?!

[tims4wins]

I still wouldn't rank SF ahead of the Pats. Yes, they won in Foxboro, but on a neutral field (in neutral weather) with a healthy Gronk, I'd still favor the Pats, and I bet Vegas would, too.

[bowiac]

1. They don't have a healthy Gronk right now. I'm not ranking who is gonna be the best team six weeks from now.
2. Patriots fans sound a little silly when they complain that the wintry conditions were to blame for them losing to a team from California. It may well be accurate, but weather is part of the game too.

[tims4wins]

So you would take the Niners over the Pats right now on a neutral field?

[Jungleland]

9ers
Seahawks
Pats
Broncos
Falcons
Packers
Texans
pretenders

[JCizzle]

I would probably favor the Niners by a point since they just won in NE three days ago. Obviously the teams are pretty much equal though so I don't think it really matters. As a side note, I'd say the Niners are much less likely to make the SB between the teams for what that's worth.

Edited by JCizzle, 18 December 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[phragle]

I don't see how if you're doing a resume test, San Fran isn't #1 now.

1. 49ers
2. Patriots
3. Screw it - Seahawks
4. Broncos
5. Texans
6. Falcons
7. Packers
8. Giants
9. Bears?
10. Ravens ?!

Ha! Yes!

[kolbitr]

I would probably favor the Niners by a point since they just won in NE three days ago. Obviously the teams are pretty much equal though so I don't think it really matters. As a side note, I'd say the Niners are much less likely to make the SB between the teams for what that's worth.

Why so pessimistic? Just that the NFC will have a stronger field? While true, I'm not sure they'd be much less likely...they looked awfully tough Sunday night, assuming J. Smith's elbow doesn't get worse. Which would be huge...

(The Seattle-SF game should be fascinating, given the strength of the teams, the location, and the animus between the coaches...)

[Adrian's Dome]

Why so pessimistic? Just that the NFC will have a stronger field? While true, I'm not sure they'd be much less likely...they looked awfully tough Sunday night, assuming J. Smith's elbow doesn't get worse. Which would be huge...

(The Seattle-SF game should be fascinating, given the strength of the teams, the location, and the animus between the coaches...)

Probably a combo of the inexperienced QB plus the stronger field. Not that I necessarily agree, but that's the only logical reasoning I can see.A SF/NE SB would be excellent, assuming there isn't 37 fumbles this time around.

1. SF - you win, especially on your opponent's turf, you get the top spot. That's why it's the power rankings.
2. NE
3. DEN - unconvincingly, though.
4. ATL - leapfrogged HOU and GB with that performance.
5. HOU
6. GB
7. SEA - you could probably rank them #1 if they're at home, though.
8. NYG - Who shows up, the Hulk, or Mark Ruffalo?

[kolbitr]

Probably a combo of the inexperienced QB plus the stronger field. Not that I necessarily agree, but that's the only logical reasoning I can see.A SF/NE SB would be excellent, assuming there isn't 37 fumbles this time around.

1. SF - you win, especially on your opponent's turf, you get the top spot. That's why it's the power rankings.
2. NE
3. DEN - unconvincingly, though.
4. ATL - leapfrogged HOU and GB with that performance.
5. HOU
6. GB
7. SEA - you could probably rank them #1 if they're at home, though.
8. NYG - Who shows up, the Hulk, or Mark Ruffalo?

I've no problem with these, though I feel Seattle is stronger than Houston these days...probably right about the home field. NYG is a bizarre team.

[JCizzle]

Why so pessimistic? Just that the NFC will have a stronger field? While true, I'm not sure they'd be much less likely...they looked awfully tough Sunday night, assuming J. Smith's elbow doesn't get worse. Which would be huge...

(The Seattle-SF game should be fascinating, given the strength of the teams, the location, and the animus between the coaches...)

Yeah, it's the stronger field. Having teams like Seattle and possibly the NYG as 5/6 seeds is nasty compared to the mediocre teams the AFC will be putting out there. In my opinion, the AFC is a three team race (with the Texans being the borderline third team) while the NFC will have six strong teams that I can realistically envision making the SB.

[abty]

Nobody in the NFC wants to be the 3/4 seed. Rogers has had enough of the Giants as have the 49'ers. If they sneak in they will likely be the 6 seed which means they face either Green Bay, Seattle or San Fran. It also means Washington, if they win, would play seattle. Man, the NFC first round has the *potential* to be incredible. Of course, it could also be dallas and the vikings sneaking in, or bears :/

[Dgilpin]

1. 49ers
2. Pats
3. Green Bay
4. Seattle
5. Atlanta
6. Houston
7. Denver
8. Giants
9. Redskins
10. Ravens
11. Vikings
12. Steelers

[Stitch01]

Purely on strength of teams and who Id pick over who on a neutral field

NE
SF
Den
Sea
GB
Hous
NYG
Wash

3-6 spots are squishy. Everyone else sort of sucks.

[PedroKsBambino]

1. They don't have a healthy Gronk right now. I'm not ranking who is gonna be the best team six weeks from now.
2. Patriots fans sound a little silly when they complain that the wintry conditions were to blame for them losing to a team from California. It may well be accurate, but weather is part of the game too.

I don't think people are complaining about the weather. I think they are saying that weather conditions and fumble recoveries are both relatively random events (and hopefully also that snap fumble recoveries aren't quite so random) and thus that it is more likely Pats would play in better conditions, and do better on fumbles, in a rematch.

You can dispute those, of course, but it's accurate to note those and thus to question whether v 2.0 would play out the same way or not.

For me, the biggest question is Kaepernick's development in the next few weeks....with him growing even a bit that becomes the best team for me. With the current version (who is exciting but not fully reliable) I would take Pats first and SF second.

[Stitch01]

Purely on strength of teams and who Id pick over who on a neutral field

NE
SF
Den
Sea
GB
Hous
NYG
Wash

3-6 spots are squishy. Everyone else sort of sucks.

Whoops, missed Atlanta as I was editing and changing order, Id have them one spot in front of NYG.

[RedOctober3829]

I don't think people are complaining about the weather. I think they are saying that weather conditions and fumble recoveries are both relatively random events (and hopefully also that snap fumble recoveries aren't quite so random) and thus that it is more likely Pats would play in better conditions, and do better on fumbles, in a rematch.

You can dispute those, of course, but it's accurate to note those and thus to question whether v 2.0 would play out the same way or not.

For me, the biggest question is Kaepernick's development in the next few weeks....with him growing even a bit that becomes the best team for me. With the current version (who is exciting but not fully reliable) I would take Pats first and SF second.

Considering v2.0 would be played in a dome, I think I know who I'd bet on to have their performance drastically improve on offense. Hint: they have a Flying Elvis on their helmet.

[coremiller]

C'mon guys, it goes both ways. If they play again in a dome, Kaepernick won't fumble the snap four times. Sure SF recovered all of those, but that was four free negative plays NE's D got without having to do anything. And one was a crucial 4th down. A lot easier to sustain drives when you're not giving away plays. Plus the SF kicker is a lot less likely to miss 39 yd FGs in a dome than on a cold, rainy night at Foxboro.

Before the game all the Pats fans were talking about how the weather gave the Pats an advantage, either because of experience or because bad weather helps offensive teams since it's easier for receivers to get out of their cuts than it is for defenders to react on a wet field. Now suddenly the weather was a big obstacle?

One way to look at that game is that the Pats were right there at the end and just a few plays away from winning. Another way is that the Pats needed several lucky breaks just not to be down about 50-3 in the third quarter. By mid-3rd quarter SF was up 31-3 AND had 4 additional drives inside the Pats' 33 yard line that produced zero points. Sure the Pats offense could play better in a rematch, but so could SF's.

[Jettisoned]

= Another way is that the Pats needed several lucky breaks just not to be down about 50-3 in the third quarter.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? If not for a ridiculous fumble that went 12 feet in the air and directly at a 49er defender and an INT on a screen pass that bounced 4 times off 2 players the game could have been 14-10 with 25 minutes to go. We can cherry pick 20 minutes where the game looked really ugly for the 49ers as well, and none of it involved easy TD's with a short field.

Talk about all the counterfactuals you want, but in a game in crazy conditions where a lot of fluky stuff happens the 49ers won by one score. Anyone trying to claim that this game shows either team is clearly superior to the other one is an idiot.

Edited by Jettisoned, 20 December 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[coremiller]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? If not for a ridiculous fumble that went 12 feet in the air and directly at a 49er defender and an INT on a screen pass that bounced 4 times off 2 players the game could have been 14-10 with 25 minutes to go. We can cherry pick 20 minutes where the game looked really ugly for the 49ers as well, and none of it involved easy TD's with a short field.

Talk about all the counterfactuals you want, but in a game in crazy conditions where a lot of fluky stuff happens the 49ers won by one score. Anyone trying to claim that this game shows either team is clearly superior to the other one is an idiot.

Oh please. I'm not being obtuse, I'm calling out whiny homerism. They played on the Pats' home field and the Niners won by 7, and the Pats fans here are blaming it on the weather and claiming the Pats should be clear favorites in a rematch. Look, the Niners got a couple breaks but not nearly as many as most of the people here seem to think. They thoroughly outplayed NE for large portions of the game, and it's not the first time the Pats have had trouble with fast, physical defenses that can generate pressure without having to blitz a lot. Fumble luck might regress to the mean, but there's no reason to expect the Pats performance to "drastically improve" in a rematch solely because it wouldn't be raining. If anything, the weather hurt SF a lot more by contributing to all those botched snaps and the missed field goal.

[BigSoxFan]

For me, the top 5-6 teams are all pretty much even. I really don't see any of the NE/Hou/Den/Atl/GB/SF as head and shoulders above the rest and it's hard to distinguish between the teams because they've all pretty much had dud games against each other.

[MentalDisabldLst]

Oh please. I'm not being obtuse, I'm calling out whiny homerism. They played on the Pats' home field and the Niners won by 7, and the Pats fans here are blaming it on the weather and claiming the Pats should be clear favorites in a rematch. Look, the Niners got a couple breaks but not nearly as many as most of the people here seem to think. They thoroughly outplayed NE for large portions of the game, and it's not the first time the Pats have had trouble with fast, physical defenses that can generate pressure without having to blitz a lot. Fumble luck might regress to the mean, but there's no reason to expect the Pats performance to "drastically improve" in a rematch solely because it wouldn't be raining. If anything, the weather hurt SF a lot more by contributing to all those botched snaps and the missed field goal.

I think we can conclude 2 things from the game on Sunday:

1) The 49ers are clearly the best team we've played all year, Denver and Houston included, and they ought to be favorites to win the NFC. They are a fucking ferocious team, with a rookie QB who is a wildcard and capable of flashes of brilliance, and the exact combination of talent that works well against the Pats.

2) If luck is evened out in that game, as would be the median expectation in a rematch, then it's a coinflip. We put 28 points up, in 4 consecutive drives, against the league's best defense. They also stopped the league's best offense for the better part of a half, through a combination of fluky fumbles and damn good DL play. In neither case (NE's O or SF's D) is there another team in the league who could do that to them.

If they put a final stake in the Giants' vampiric body and advance through GB, ATL and the other contenders to take the NFC, I will relish the challenge even more than I'd relish a chance to beat down on (a clearly inferior 2012 version of) the Giants.

[jkempa]

I think we can conclude 2 things from the game on Sunday:

1) The 49ers are clearly the best team we've played all year, Denver and Houston included, and they ought to be favorites to win the NFC. They are a fucking ferocious team, with a rookie QB who is a wildcard and capable of flashes of brilliance, and the exact combination of talent that works well against the Pats.

2) If luck is evened out in that game, as would be the median expectation in a rematch, then it's a coinflip. We put 28 points up, in 4 consecutive drives, against the league's best defense. They also stopped the league's best offense for the better part of a half, through a combination of fluky fumbles and damn good DL play. In neither case (NE's O or SF's D) is there another team in the league who could do that to them.

If they put a final stake in the Giants' vampiric body and advance through GB, ATL and the other contenders to take the NFC, I will relish the challenge even more than I'd relish a chance to beat down on (a clearly inferior 2012 version of) the Giants.

Missing maybe its best player during that stretch. There's a reason Aldon Smith wasn't up in Brady's grill the whole second half, but he was in the first.

[jsinger121]

Missing maybe its best player during that stretch. There's a reason Aldon Smith wasn't up in Brady's grill the whole second half, but he was in the first.

And the Pats were missing one of their most important offensive players for the whole game in Gronk? What's the point?

[PedroKsBambino]

The other thing to me about a rematch (other than that I'd be really excited to watch it) is that the Niners physically dominated the Pats on both lines for good-size stretches of the game, something we rarely see.

I don't know if that speaks to the Niners tremendous talent, or is something the Pats would respond differently to in a rematch. I simply don't know---and it'll be a big part of the rematch.

[RedOctober3829]

One thing that we need to take into account for scoring 28 consecutive points on SF is that they switched from man coverage to zone for much of those drives. Brady couldn't do anything against their man coverage early, but picked apart the zone as he usually does. How much zone would they play in a rematch? Not much if it's a close game.

Another factor that helped in that comeback was that the SF pass rush was clearly gassed from rushing so much. Logically, in a dome where it would be much hotter, does their defense get fatigued even earlier?

Everything aside, it would be an awesome rematch.

[jsinger121]

One thing that we need to take into account for scoring 28 consecutive points on SF is that they switched from man coverage to zone for much of those drives. Brady couldn't do anything against their man coverage early, but picked apart the zone as he usually does. How much zone would they play in a rematch? Not much if it's a close game.

Another factor that helped in that comeback was that the SF pass rush was clearly gassed from rushing so much. Logically, in a dome where it would be much hotter, does their defense get fatigued even earlier?

Everything aside, it would be an awesome rematch.

They are going to have to play some zone especially if they are in a rematch when Gronk is back. They won't be able to man up in Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Lloyd are on the field all at once.

[Stitch01]

Oh please. I'm not being obtuse, I'm calling out whiny homerism. They played on the Pats' home field and the Niners won by 7, and the Pats fans here are blaming it on the weather and claiming the Pats should be clear favorites in a rematch. Look, the Niners got a couple breaks but not nearly as many as most of the people here seem to think. They thoroughly outplayed NE for large portions of the game, and it's not the first time the Pats have had trouble with fast, physical defenses that can generate pressure without having to blitz a lot. Fumble luck might regress to the mean, but there's no reason to expect the Pats performance to "drastically improve" in a rematch solely because it wouldn't be raining. If anything, the weather hurt SF a lot more by contributing to all those botched snaps and the missed field goal.

I think its a copout to call what happened lucky or fluky, but I dont think its crazy to rank the Pats above the 49ers. If you made me bet a Pats/Niners Super Bowl straight up though, Im taking the Pats. Betting Market Analytics has the Pats between a 0.5 and 1 point favorite on a neutral field. That's pretty close to where the line finished before Sunday's game accounting for homefield, and it seems about right to me. I think if the Pats play SF 100 times on a neutral field they win like 53 times or something like that.