Playoff Fear Factor

[rodderick]

Yeah, I disagree with the claim that it's "nowhere near super bowl caliber". Quite clearly, it's at least "near" Super Bowl caliber.

From a points-per-game allowed perspective (and I disagree with people who say this is the only stat that matters...ultimately, yes, but if you're evaluating the quality of a defense, there's more that goes into it than that; but it is the MAJOR stat to pay attention to), here's how the playoff teams rank:

1. Min - 15.8
2. Jax - 16.8
4. Phi - 18.4
5. NE - 18.5
7. Pit - 19.3
8. Atl - 19.7
10. NO - 20.4
11. Car - 20.4
12. LAR - 20.6
15. KC - 21.2
17. Ten - 22.3
18. Buf - 22.4

From an offensive standpoint, here's how they rank:

1. LAR - 29.9
2. NE - 28.6
3. Phi - 28.6
4. NO - 28.0
5. Jax - 26.1
6. KC - 25.9
8. Pit - 25.4
10. Min - 23.9
12. Car - 22.2
15. Atl - 22.1
19. Ten - 20.9
22. Buf - 18.9

Point differential:

Phi: +10.2
NE: +10.1
Jax: +9.3
LAR: +9.3
Min: +8.1
NO: +7.6
Pit: +6.1
KC: +4.7
Atl: +2.4
Car: +1.8
Ten: -1.4
Buf: -3.5

In my view, the Patriots have to be the team with the best odds of winning the Super Bowl. I haven't seen Vegas odds but I'm sure I'm right.

Pats defense ranks last in DVOA, 32nd in yards per drive, 12th in points per drive, 31st in plays per drive and 20th in turnovers per drive. The only stat they truly excel at is average opponent starting field position, where they rank first in the league. Considering the offense ranks 28th in drives per game, but 4th in TOP, and 1st in points, yards and plays per drive, it seems that what we have here is a bad defense that is getting propped up by the best offense in the league while simultaneously severely holding it back by staying on the field more than pretty much any other. I think it's pretty clear that no, this defense is absolutely not championship caliber on its own, and that points allowed is a very context dependent stat. The only reason the Pats have a chance at a title with that defense is due to excellent offense and special teams doing everything in their power to overcome the ineptitude on the other side of the ball.

Just another reason why the "Brady always had a good defense and that's why he wins" argument is laughable. The Pats managed to be 11th in the league in points allowed in 2011, while playing Julian Edelman, Antwan Molden, Sergio Brown, James Ihedigbo, Nate Jones and a struggling Devin McCourty (still at CB) in the secondary. Was that a championship caliber defense because the stat that matters most is points allowed?

Quick edit: looking at the numbers, I found it funny that just like for the past 10 years, the defensive stat the Patriots performed the best in in 2001 was average opponent starting field position, where they ranked second in the league. Guess this isn't just a recent trend.

 

[BaseballJones]

Pats defense ranks last in DVOA, 32nd in yards per drive, 12th in points per drive, 31st in plays per drive and 20th in turnovers per drive. The only stat they truly excel at is average opponent starting field position, where they rank first in the league. Considering the offense ranks 28th in drives per game, but 4th in TOP, and 1st in points, yards and plays per drive, it seems that what we have here is a bad defense that is getting propped up by the best offense in the league while simultaneously severely holding it back by staying on the field more than pretty much any other. I think it's pretty clear that no, this defense is absolutely not championship caliber on its own, and that points allowed is a very context dependent stat. The only reason the Pats have a chance at a title with that defense is due to excellent offense and special teams doing everything in their power to overcome the ineptitude on the other side of the ball.

Just another reason why the "Brady always had a good defense and that's why he wins" argument is laughable. The Pats managed to be 11th in the league in points allowed in 2011, while playing Julian Edelman, Antwan Molden, Sergio Brown, James Ihedigbo, Nate Jones and a struggling Devin McCourty (still at CB) in the secondary. Was that a championship caliber defense because the stat that matters most is points allowed?

Quick edit: looking at the numbers, I found it funny that just like for the past 10 years, the defensive stat the Patriots performed the best in in 2001 was average opponent starting field position, where they ranked second in the league. Guess this isn't just a recent trend.

The bolded is just not true. They are near the top in the league in:

- Opponents' points per game (5th)
- Opponents' red zone TD percentage (4th)
- Sacks (8th)
- Opponents' points per play (4th)
- Opponents' offensive points per game (4th) - meaning when you factor out the pick-sixes, etc., that the other teams' defense scores, the Pats actually move from 5th to 4th in scoring defense

They definitely benefit from having a good offense and special teams that usually affords the defense good field position. But they are outstanding in the red zone, so really what we have here is an absolutely classic bend-but-don't-break formula.

 

[rodderick]

The bolded is just not true. They are near the top in the league in:

- Opponents' points per game (5th)
- Opponents' red zone TD percentage (4th)
- Sacks (8th)
- Opponents' points per play (4th)
- Opponents' offensive points per game (4th) - meaning when you factor out the pick-sixes, etc., that the other teams' defense scores, the Pats actually move from 5th to 4th in scoring defense

They definitely benefit from having a good offense and special teams that usually affords the defense good field position. But they are outstanding in the red zone, so really what we have here is an absolutely classic bend-but-don't-break formula.

Being 4th in red zone TD percentage is very good, but I don't know if I'd call it "outstanding". It's classic "bend but don't break" that, in my opinion, only works when the opponent needs to drive the whole field and is constantly pressured to get TDs in order to keep up. Of course football is a team sport and all phases of the game interact with each other, but if the plan is to have a defensive philosophy that's based around letting the opposition have a ton of plays and limit the possessions of your all time great offense, I don't know how effective a strategy that is. Seems to me like they have to play it that way because the team just isn't all that talented, especially up front, but pair that defense up with a middling offense and I don't think there'd be anyone arguing they are even a top 10 unit, as the current points allowed would indicate.

 

[5dice]

You are both right. This offense should be on the field more than it has been. Special teams and field position are so overlooked by the vast majority of teams. At least we have that as a huge difference maker in the postseason. The depleted front seven is what it is from a complex mix of injury, trade and draft hubris and some bad luck. I would imagine it gets addressed in the draft. You can’t say that they didn’t do the right thing on paper with stocking this secondary.

 

[BaseballJones]

Being 4th in red zone TD percentage is very good, but I don't know if I'd call it "outstanding". It's classic "bend but don't break" that, in my opinion, only works when the opponent needs to drive the whole field and is constantly pressured to get TDs in order to keep up. Of course football is a team sport and all phases of the game interact with each other, but if the plan is to have a defensive philosophy that's based around letting the opposition have a ton of plays and limit the possessions of your all time great offense, I don't know how effective a strategy that is. Seems to me like they have to play it that way because the team just isn't all that talented, especially up front, but pair that defense up with a middling offense and I don't think there'd be anyone arguing they are even a top 10 unit, as the current points allowed would indicate.

Fourth in the NFL is outstanding no matter what the metric is. In 2001 then won the Super Bowl with a defense ranked 6th in scoring, but 24th in yards. And they held their three playoff opponents to these point totals:

Oak (4th in the NFL in scoring at 24.9 per game): 13
Pit (7th in the NFL in scoring at 22.0 per game): 17
StL (1st in the NFL in scoring at 31.4 per game): 17

That's pretty darned good. The real problem for this defensive unit has been:

(1) lack of generating turnovers - just 25th in the league with 18 total turnovers
(2) third down conversion rate - 21st in the league at 39.4%

So they are struggling to get off the field between the 20s because they don't generate turnovers and they yield a high percentage of third down conversions. BUT once they get into the red zone, obviously they tighten up.

 

[Nator]

The correct answer to this question:

SOSH will collectively fear whomever the Patriots give up an 8 yard 1st down run to in the divisional round. While they are up 10-3.
In the second quarter.
The game will be chalked up as a loss at that point in the game thread.

 

[joe dokes]

It’s amazing to me that Peter King doesn’t know how playoff seedings work in the NFL (he says Pitt plays winner of Jax-Buffalo, as though it’s a set bracket). I mean how is that possible? I also completely disagree with Pitt having the “easiest road,” but at least that part is subjective.

As for me, I’m not afraid of any team left. Sure, the Pats could easily lose on any given Sunday, but this team has been mostly winning during Brady’s worst stretch in years and they’re probably going to get some key pieces back as well. And with 5 SB, I think we’re kinda playing with house money at this point. Time to sit back and enjoy the ride.

And in a verrrry sleazy move, he has re-written the piece:

It now says:

Easiest road
New England. The Steelers are banged up and are the only team that pose a significant threat -- unless Jacksonville can stun teams offensively in the post season. This is an obvious choice; New England has the easiest road because they are the best prepared and most talented team in the division. They are also relatively healthy at a time when teams are seriously reeling. The Bills will struggle to get top weapon LeSean McCoy on the field. The Steelers will be rushing Antonio Brown back to game play after a serious calf injury sustained in December's thrilling loss to the Patriots. Those betting against New England have to also believe that a rapidly improving defense and likely MVP winner will falter at the hands of a scattered field of incomplete teams.

It used to say:
Easiest road
Pittsburgh. Mike Tomlin lucks out. He gets the winner of Jacksonville-Buffalo . . . . .

 

[Ed Hillel]

And in a verrrry sleazy move, he has re-written the piece:

It now says:


It used to say:
Easiest road
Pittsburgh. Mike Tomlin lucks out. He gets the winner of Jacksonville-Buffalo . . . . .

Super sleazy considering that Jax is probably 85-90% to win, so it’s not like that little mistake should impact his overall conclusion. Well, whatever.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I organized my take into three separate groups: 1) Great Teams, 2) A Cut Below, and 3) Not Concerned.

There are five teams in the NFL that are elite, very good, great, or whatever adjective you want to use including the Pats: Steelers, Pats, Rams, Vikings, Saints. I fear those other teams the most. Luckily the AFC only has the Steelers and they are less scary without Antonio Brown but still a great team. JJSS is quite a talent.

Then there are the teams that are still good but a cut below those teams: Chiefs, Jags, Panthers, Eagles, Falcons. If the Pats grade out as an A- these guys are the B's to B+. With Wentz the Eagles are obviously a different story.

Finally there are the teams that could win because you never know on any given Sunday but are significantly flawed: Titans, and Bills.

I fear the Rams the most. I think they have the most complete team.

 

[Marciano490]

Goff and Keenum had very good years, and obviously both teams have a ton of talent on both sides of the ball, but I'd need to see them win a playoff game before I get overly frightened of either Minnesota or the Rams.

 

[tims4wins]

Goff and Keenum had very good years, and obviously both teams have a ton of talent on both sides of the ball, but I'd need to see them win a playoff game before I get overly frightened of either Minnesota or the Rams.

I'm with you on this - I would trust BB against either of those guys more than I would against Drew Brees or Matt Ryan (even though the Pats have beaten both recently)

 

[Captaincoop]

The Patriots are relatively healthy, while other AFC teams are "reeling" with injuries?

They're missing their best wide receiver, offensive tackle, and linebacker. Not to mention 3 of their top 4 running backs.

 

[tims4wins]

The Patriots are relatively healthy, while other AFC teams are "reeling" with injuries?

They're missing their best wide receiver, offensive tackle, and linebacker. Not to mention 3 of their top 4 running backs.

The Pats health is truly a mystery right now. If KVN is healthy, and Hogan, White, Alan Branch are back, then they are in pretty good shape. But if a couple of those guys are out, then they're in a more perilous position.

 

[Marciano490]

The Patriots are relatively healthy, while other AFC teams are "reeling" with injuries?

They're missing their best wide receiver, offensive tackle, and linebacker. Not to mention 3 of their top 4 running backs.

What's the story with Edelman? I saw an article somewhere where he wouldn't totally, completely rule out coming back, but do roster rules preclude that at this point anyways?

 

[Captaincoop]

They're fine, because they have a lot of depth. But Cannon, Hightower, and Edelman are not coming back. That alone is a lot of talent out injured.

 

[tims4wins]

What's the story with Edelman? I saw an article somewhere where he wouldn't totally, completely rule out coming back, but do roster rules preclude that at this point anyways?

Pats have already used their 2 designated to return slots on McClellin and Mitchell. So he is out.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Pats have already used their 2 designated to return slots on McClellin and Mitchell. So he is out.

Wish they had saved 1 of those for Valentine.

 

[tims4wins]

Wish they had saved 1 of those for Valentine.

Kind of depends on Hogan and Branch IMO.

That being said, it doesn't seem like Valentine was particularly close.

 

[pokey_reese]

So, just for kicks, I went and grabbed rankings from a handful of places, and figured I would just average them, to see what the consensus is for the relative strength of teams in the playoffs. It's a mix of stats and human power rankings:

Stats Ranks - FPI (ESPN), DVOA (Football Outsider) Weighted DVOA (Football Outsider), ELO (538), 2017 Point Differential

Human Power Rankings - ESPN, CBS, NFL.com

Results (rank, team, avg. ranking):
1.) NE, 1.63
2.) MIN, 3.25
3.) PIT, 3.88
4.) NO, 4.13
5.) PHI, 4.63
6.) LAR, 5.00
7.) CAR, 8.88
8.) JAX, 9.00
9.) ATL, 10.00
10.) KC, 10.00
11.) TEN, 16.13
12.) BUF, 18.38

So looking at these, the big jumps in terms of tiers would be something like:
Favorite - NE
Top Teams - MIN, PIT, NO, PHI, LAR
Good Teams - CAR, JAX, ATL, KC
Pretenders - TEN, BUF

You could certainly argue that the Pats could just be in the 'top teams' group, but they really did stand out in terms of the jump. Also worth noting, the Pats were ranked #1 in seven out of the eight systems I checked, with only unweighted DVOA having them 6th. Really shows how shitty the wild card teams in the AFC are (this would have looked a lot better if BAL/LAC made it in).

 

[tims4wins]

I agree with all that. Philly may belong in tier 3 because of Foles.

 

[pokey_reese]

I agree with all that. Philly may belong in tier 3 because of Foles.

Yeah, obviously the stats-only methods don't know what happened to Wentz, outside of the results of the last three games. However, it's worth noting that the three human systems still gave the Eagles an average rank of 5.33, so even with Foles they like the Eagles more than the CAR/JAX/ATL/KC crew.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Tier 1
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
KC

Tier 2
LA Rams
Jacksonville
New Orleans
Carolina
Philly
Atlanta

Tier 3
Buffalo
Tennessee

 

[Bergs]

Any given Sunday, blah blah blah, but for me it's New Orleans and then everybody else.

 

[mwonow]

Is it okay to say NE? 'Cause if the Pats don't beat themselves, it will take a darned good game for anyone else to beat them.

And the Pats don't beat themselves very often.

 

[DrBlinky]

What's the story with Edelman? I saw an article somewhere where he wouldn't totally, completely rule out coming back, but do roster rules preclude that at this point anyways?

Pats have already used their 2 designated to return slots on McClellin and Mitchell. So he is out.

Edelman would not have been eligible to return under any circumstance because he was placed on IR prior to week one. (Same applies to Cyrus Jones and Derek Rivers.)

 

[Willie Clay's Big Play]

Love this thread, lots of good posts. I'm worried about Pitt, KC and Jax in that order. Fear levels and the amount of booze needed to get through any of those games will be greatly reduced if KVN, Hogan, Branch and Head Rexburk are back and able to contribute to the levels we're accustomed to. LA and NO in the NFC.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I know they have been so so most of the season and looked all PTSD-ish against the Patriots, but I actually fear ATL. If they somehow "figured it out" as the season went along, and they "get hot at the right time," they have a top 10 QB, a diverse set of weapons and experience -- although, yes, that PTSD could loom still -- I could be convinced a got-to-the-Super Bowl Falcons team is arguably quite worrying.

 

[alydar]

Love this thread, lots of good posts. I'm worried about Pitt, KC and Jax in that order. Fear levels and the amount of booze needed to get through any of those games will be greatly reduced if KVN, Hogan, Branch and Head Rexburk are back and able to contribute to the levels we're accustomed to. LA and NO in the NFC.

I agree with Van Noy and Branch, but I confess that I don't understand the oft-repeated line that getting Hogan back is somehow terribly important. If someone else were to get hurt, sure, then I'd rather Hogan than Britt or Dorsett get a ton of snaps. But in terms of weapons he's clearly less important than Gronk, Lewis, Cooks, and Amendola, and maybe James White. You can only have 5 skill position guys on the field at a time, and obviously many situations dictate also using Develin or Allen as one of them.

Not saying Hogan is useless by any means, but the improvement he'd make is pretty marginal, I'd think -- especially since the way the Patriots tend to lose is having Brady hit by getting beat up the middle, and ameliorating that with a quick passing game doesn't seem to be Hogan's role.

Would love to be convinced otherwise!

 

[Super Nomario]

I agree with Van Noy and Branch, but I confess that I don't understand the oft-repeated line that getting Hogan back is somehow terribly important. If someone else were to get hurt, sure, then I'd rather Hogan than Britt or Dorsett get a ton of snaps. But in terms of weapons he's clearly less important than Gronk, Lewis, Cooks, and Amendola, and maybe James White. You can only have 5 skill position guys on the field at a time, and obviously many situations dictate also using Develin or Allen as one of them.

Not saying Hogan is useless by any means, but the improvement he'd make is pretty marginal, I'd think -- especially since the way the Patriots tend to lose is having Brady hit by getting beat up the middle, and ameliorating that with a quick passing game doesn't seem to be Hogan's role.

Would love to be convinced otherwise!

Hogan plays more than Amendola (he actually finished with more snaps played even with all the time he missed) and was producing more prior to getting hurt. Amendola, White, Develin, and Allen are all basically role players. Hogan is a guy who rarely leaves the field when he's healthy. His absence has meant having to use more Allen and Develin even though they add little in the passing game.

 

[j44thor]

Hogan is very important in the red zone, much more so than Cooks.

I don't think it is coincidence that the passing offense has looked much less efficient since Hogan went down.

 

[alydar]

Hogan plays more than Amendola (he actually finished with more snaps played even with all the time he missed) and was producing more prior to getting hurt. Amendola, White, Develin, and Allen are all basically role players. Hogan is a guy who rarely leaves the field when he's healthy. His absence has meant having to use more Allen and Develin even though they add little in the passing game.

I certainly don't disagree with this -- the Pats are a better team with Hogan than without, and he's certainly had some big moments. A 3 WR set is better with him in there than Dorsett. I just get the sense that my expectations for any improvement on offense once they get him back are lower than most.

Maybe another way of answering my own question is to note that against some teams, the use of a FB or a second TE is the best way to attack, in which case Hogan's absence isn't a killer. But for other teams, where 3 or 4 wide is the more optimal approach, keeping Dorsett and/or Britt off the field is a lot more valuable.

 

[Super Nomario]

I certainly don't disagree with this -- the Pats are a better team with Hogan than without, and he's certainly had some big moments. A 3 WR set is better with him in there than Dorsett. I just get the sense that my expectations for any improvement on offense once they get him back are lower than most.

Maybe another way of answering my own question is to note that against some teams, the use of a FB or a second TE is the best way to attack, in which case Hogan's absence isn't a killer. But for other teams, where 3 or 4 wide is the more optimal approach, keeping Dorsett and/or Britt off the field is a lot more valuable.

Hogan is also on the field in 2 WR sets. He's played 90% of the snaps in the game's he's been active for.

 

[alydar]

Hogan is also on the field in 2 WR sets.

Right, but the delta between Hogan and Amendola is smaller than between Hogan and Dorsett, I'd argue, so his absence is felt more in 3 WR+ sets. Again, I'm not saying Hogan isn't good or anything, I'm just trying to understand where his perceived impact on the offense is biggest

 

[Super Nomario]

Right, but the delta between Hogan and Amendola is smaller than between Hogan and Dorsett, I'd argue, so his absence is felt more in 3 WR+ sets. Again, I'm not saying Hogan isn't good or anything, I'm just trying to understand where his perceived impact on the offense is biggest

You seem to be assuming that with Hogan out, Amendola slid into his role in 2 WR sets, but that's not really what happened. Amendola and Dorsett played almost exactly the same number of snaps (265 and 264, respectively) in the games Hogan missed. So there was a lot of Dorsett in 2 WR sets. Hogan's return should impact all the personnel groupings, because he played in all the personnel groupings.

 

[alydar]

You seem to be assuming that with Hogan out, Amendola slid into his role in 2 WR sets, but that's not really what happened. Amendola and Dorsett played almost exactly the same number of snaps (265 and 264, respectively) in the games Hogan missed. So there was a lot of Dorsett in 2 WR sets. Hogan's return should impact all the personnel groupings, because he played in all the personnel groupings.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that Amendola had 61 catches to Dorsett's 12! In conclusion, Dorsett isn't that good

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

From what I've seen, and from observers whose opinions I give some credence to - the PFW guys, in particular - Dorsett, the drop the other day notwithstanding, has been open and ignored by Brady a decent amount.

Lots and lots of caveats - we don't know if he's in the wrong place, what the route is, what he's done in practice, to name a few - but I'm a little disappointed that #12 hasn't done more to get him involved. The drop on Sunday seemed like an outlier to me. Most of the time Dorsett catches the few balls thrown his way.

Edit typos

 

[Harry Hooper]

Didn't the Josh-Tom sideline dust-up this season involve Josh getting on Tom for ignoring a wide-open Dorsett?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

In the AFC, honestly, JAX scares me most. Nasty D (no, not historic, but neither is our offense) and they have a run game that can churn clock. Bortles is Bortles, but I don’t think we could contain Fournette and if they hold they ball for 35-40 minutes, it could be trouble.

NFC, I think the Rams and Saints worry me most because of their offenses. I’m still not sold on our defense.

And Vikings having Home field for a SB I think is irrelevant, given the way the league distributes tickets. It’s not like it would be a home game.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I disagree that the Vikings being at home in a potential Super Bowl matchup is irrelevant. Tickets are readily available on the secondary market and anyone who wants to attend the game can go if they are willing to pay, but Viking fans who are local and want to go won't have to deal with the logistical issues and expense of traveling to the host city. That combined with the fact that it has been 41 years since the Vikings played in the Super Bowl (and the Pats have, you know, made it a few times recently) and I would expect many, many more Viking fans in the building in that hypothetical matchup. I don't think it'll be a road game, exactly, but it probably won't feel exactly like a neutral site game either. I'm not sure how much of a factor it'll be since it is unprecedented, but I wouldn't just dismiss it either.

In terms of my own "fear factor", to me in the AFC there are the Steelers and there is everyone else. There was a time when Patriot fans thought BB had Peyton Manning's number in the playoffs, until they didn't anymore and he beat them in 3 AFC title games. Yes the Pats have owned the Steelers recently, but I think a rematch, even with a hobbled Brown, would be a close game that could go either way. I have a much harder time seeing anyone else in the AFC (and in particular any other QB in the AFC) winning a playoff game in Foxboro, but then again Mark Sanchez once did it.

 

[jsinger121]

I disagree that the Vikings being at home in a potential Super Bowl matchup is irrelevant. Tickets are readily available on the secondary market and anyone who wants to attend the game can go if they are willing to pay, but Viking fans who are local and want to go won't have to deal with the logistical issues and expense of traveling to the host city. That combined with the fact that it has been 41 years since the Vikings played in the Super Bowl (and the Pats have, you know, made it a few times recently) and I would expect many, many more Viking fans in the building in that hypothetical matchup. I don't think it'll be a road game, exactly, but it probably won't feel exactly like a neutral site game either. I'm not sure how much of a factor it'll be since it is unprecedented, but I wouldn't just dismiss it either.

In terms of my own "fear factor", to me in the AFC there are the Steelers and there is everyone else. There was a time when Patriot fans thought BB had Peyton Manning's number in the playoffs, until they didn't anymore and he beat them in 3 AFC title games. Yes the Pats have owned the Steelers recently, but I think a rematch, even with a hobbled Brown, would be a close game that could go either way. I have a much harder time seeing anyone else in the AFC (and in particular any other QB in the AFC) winning a playoff game in Foxboro, but then again Mark Sanchez once did it.

Basically you will see the same type of atmosphere as Super Bowl 19 when San Francisco blew out Miami at the old Stanford Stadium. The only other time a team pretty much at home lost a Super Bowl was in the Rams-Steelers one in the Rose Bowl but Steelers fans travel so fucking well I wouldn't be shocked if the Rose Bowl that day was more Steeler fans than Ram fans.

 

[johnmd20]

I disagree that the Vikings being at home in a potential Super Bowl matchup is irrelevant. Tickets are readily available on the secondary market and anyone who wants to attend the game can go if they are willing to pay, but Viking fans who are local and want to go won't have to deal with the logistical issues and expense of traveling to the host city. That combined with the fact that it has been 41 years since the Vikings played in the Super Bowl (and the Pats have, you know, made it a few times recently) and I would expect many, many more Viking fans in the building in that hypothetical matchup. I don't think it'll be a road game, exactly, but it probably won't feel exactly like a neutral site game either. I'm not sure how much of a factor it'll be since it is unprecedented, but I wouldn't just dismiss it either.

In terms of my own "fear factor", to me in the AFC there are the Steelers and there is everyone else. There was a time when Patriot fans thought BB had Peyton Manning's number in the playoffs, until they didn't anymore and he beat them in 3 AFC title games. Yes the Pats have owned the Steelers recently, but I think a rematch, even with a hobbled Brown, would be a close game that could go either way. I have a much harder time seeing anyone else in the AFC (and in particular any other QB in the AFC) winning a playoff game in Foxboro, but then again Mark Sanchez once did it.

The only thing not irrelevant for Minnesota, if they make the super bowl, is that they get to keep their same home schedule and stay in their homes. And that would be a nice bonus for the team. But the stadium itself won't be a factor.

 

[loshjott]

The only thing not irrelevant for Minnesota, if they make the super bowl, is that they get to keep their same home schedule and stay in their homes. And that would be a nice bonus for the team. But the stadium itself won't be a factor.

I don't think that will happen. I'll bet the NFL will make them stay in the NFC hotel and keep the exact same schedule as if it were the Saints or Eagles or anyone else repping the NFC. And as I said upthread, you sometimes hear teams say playing on the road/neutral site is less of a distraction in big games. That used to be a theme for Jordan's Bulls in the playoffs - so many hangers on looking for tickets, wanting to crash at the players' houses, etc. On the road they're cloistered in their luxury hotels, no distractions, buses to the arena, etc.

Plus, Pats fans would be outnumbered in the SB no matter which NFC team makes it, just given the dearth of SB experience from the NFC teams. (Except maybe Ram fans.)

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I've been at two Super Bowls (Jax vs. the Eagles and the Scottish Game) and both times Pats fans were vastly outnumbered. I think playing in Minneapolis against the Vikings would be more than that, again maybe not exactly like a home game for the Vikings, but close. It'll be interesting if the Vikings make it to see how it plays out.

 

[uk_sox_fan]

Point differential:

Phi: +10.2
NE: +10.1
Jax: +9.3
LAR: +9.3
Min: +8.1
NO: +7.6
Pit: +6.1
KC: +4.7
Atl: +2.4
Car: +1.8
Ten: -1.4
Buf: -3.5

Ok, I'm going to pick a nit here... The Eagles and Pats each had an aggregate PD of +162 (with the Pats one pt better than Philly in points scored and the Eagles 1 better in allowed) so their PD per game should both be +10.1. I suspect the advantage you show above for Philly is due to adding rounded amounts...

 

[Harry Hooper]

I disagree that the Vikings being at home in a potential Super Bowl matchup is irrelevant. Tickets are readily available on the secondary market and anyone who wants to attend the game can go if they are willing to pay, but Viking fans who are local and want to go won't have to deal with the logistical issues and expense of traveling to the host city. That combined with the fact that it has been 41 years since the Vikings played in the Super Bowl (and the Pats have, you know, made it a few times recently) and I would expect many, many more Viking fans in the building in that hypothetical matchup. I don't think it'll be a road game, exactly, but it probably won't feel exactly like a neutral site game either. I'm not sure how much of a factor it'll be since it is unprecedented, but I wouldn't just dismiss it either.

On top of this, this frozen North game is not one that will attract many generic NFL fans wiling to fork over big $ for a whole SB week experience.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I disagree that the Vikings being at home in a potential Super Bowl matchup is irrelevant. Tickets are readily available on the secondary market and anyone who wants to attend the game can go if they are willing to pay, but Viking fans who are local and want to go won't have to deal with the logistical issues and expense of traveling to the host city. That combined with the fact that it has been 41 years since the Vikings played in the Super Bowl (and the Pats have, you know, made it a few times recently) and I would expect many, many more Viking fans in the building in that hypothetical matchup. I don't think it'll be a road game, exactly, but it probably won't feel exactly like a neutral site game either. I'm not sure how much of a factor it'll be since it is unprecedented, but I wouldn't just dismiss it either.

In terms of my own "fear factor", to me in the AFC there are the Steelers and there is everyone else. There was a time when Patriot fans thought BB had Peyton Manning's number in the playoffs, until they didn't anymore and he beat them in 3 AFC title games. Yes the Pats have owned the Steelers recently, but I think a rematch, even with a hobbled Brown, would be a close game that could go either way. I have a much harder time seeing anyone else in the AFC (and in particular any other QB in the AFC) winning a playoff game in Foxboro, but then again Mark Sanchez once did it.

Fair point, but I would counter that at this point, any non-Pats fan at a ‘neutral’ field is essentially and anti-Pats fan. So I kind of see it as a distinction without a difference - Pats fans will likely be outnumbered no matter what color jersey the other guy is wearing. Let’s hope we need to worry about it.

 

[DJnVa]

Which makes it all the more remarkable that Amendola had 61 catches to Dorsett's 12! In conclusion, Dorsett isn't that good

Yes. This is the point you're missing. They really don't throw to Dorsett much, so when he's out there he's not considered much of a threat, yet they find it necessary to give him all those snaps and not Amendola. Hogan come back and the #2 WR goes from 50% Dorsett to 100% (well, nearly) Hogan. That slides Amendola to the position he's better in.

 

[dynomite]

Fair point, but I would counter that at this point, any non-Pats fan at a ‘neutral’ field is essentially and anti-Pats fan. So I kind of see it as a distinction without a difference - Pats fans will likely be outnumbered no matter what color jersey the other guy is wearing. Let’s hope we need to worry about it.

Sure but I there’s a difference between random fans and corporate sponsors rooting against the Pats and lifelong Vikings fans filling their home stadium. Everyone at the ‘04 SB in Jacksonville said it felt like an Eagles home game.

Of course, the Pats won the ‘04 Super Bowl and went 7-1 on the road this year, winning in some of the hardest stadiums in the league (Denver, Pittsburgh, New Orleans).

 

[Al Zarilla]

Basically you will see the same type of atmosphere as Super Bowl 19 when San Francisco blew out Miami at the old Stanford Stadium. The only other time a team pretty much at home lost a Super Bowl was in the Rams-Steelers one in the Rose Bowl but Steelers fans travel so fucking well I wouldn't be shocked if the Rose Bowl that day was more Steeler fans than Ram fans.

In that one I think Walsh, Montana, Roger Craig et al were sick of hearing about the upstart (second year) guy Dan Marino and his 48 regular season TD passes. 49ers probably would have smoked them in Miami.

 

[snowmanny]

I hope the Patriots don't run into a team that is sick of hearing about Tom Brady.

Ed: apologies if asked and answered, how would Vegas treat a Minn SB line?