Text size
–
+
After the Pats
One statistic of note from the Patriots 2007 season is the "hangover effect" opponents had the following week.
After playing the Patriots, teams were 4-11 this season.
Wins
Bills (vs. the Jets)
Browns (vs. Miami)
Cowboys (vs. Minnesota)
Redskins (at Jets)
Losses
Jets (at Baltimore)
Chargers (at Green Bay)
Bengals* (at Kansas City)
Dolphins (vs. Giants, in London)
Colts (at San Diego)
Bills (at Jacksonville)
Eagles (vs. Seattle)
Ravens (vs. Indianapolis)
Steelers (vs. Jacksonville)
Jets (at Tennessee)
Dolphins (vs. Cincinnati)
* team had bye immediately after Patriots game



Make that 4-12 after the Giants lose to the Bucs this weekend. I've been saying this all season. Evidently opponents are psychologically damaged after playing the Pats.
Not so much psychologically damaged, but physically. They are having to play all out to compete during the game and they aren't recovering in time for the following game. The Pats also expose weaknesses that the next team exploits. A perfect example was the Steelers secondary.
Yep. So instead of playing the Pats full strength and losing, the opposing coaches should put backups on the field. This way they have a much better chance to win the following game.
I don't see the physicality of years past. The passing game is passive compared to the running game, and the percentage of pass plays has been higher this year than ever. In 2001, I think the Pats simply pounded opponents, and I believe the "hangover" stats were similar. But I think teams this year have geared up to be the one to take the Pats down, and when they get crushed, or lose in an emotionally crushing way, they come out of the game incredibly deflated. It is hard to rebound from it. That, and, though they aren't as physical as they have been, there is no question that these games are dogfights, and there is to some degree a physical hangover too, but I think it is primarily psychological. And, as a Pats fan, I love it.
Joe Mama's (nice handle, btw) 'psychologically damaged' is a bit extreme for pro athletes, but I do think teams suffer a downgrade in mental focus following what was probably an intense week of prep for the Pats game. This is also where I think TBOD's remarks on the physical toll factor as well - a team going all out in practice in anticipation of the Pats game likely takes the foot off the gas the following week of practice. Mike Reiss has noted thru-out the season how BB has had to balance weeks of full-pad contact with weeks of lighter prep.
Just another point that the Patriots unblemished season was an incredible feat, requiring mental and physical toughness from week to week as well as superb talent at the skill positions.
Fascinating statistic Mike. And to think that 3 of the 4 wins came against the Jets and Dolphins make the Patriots hangover very real. One of the best stats I've seen on this team.
The only major letdown in that group was the Colts losing to the Chargers. The Bengals and Steelers were probably favored to win too, and the Cowboys and Redskins almost lost the week after playing the Pats.
It's possible that teams were physically exhausted after playing the Pats, and either didn't play as hard the next week, or just didn't practice/prepare quite as hard. But I think the real reason is that the rest of the AFC East stank it up this year. The Bills, Jets, and Dolphins were a combined 6-24 against non-division opponents.
Hangover effect isn't clear as teams did what the moneyline would have expected in most instances (Philly losing at home to Seattle and maybe Indy at SD maybe counter this). Better teams beat weaker teams. And weaker teams lost to stronger teams.
San Diego, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were all favored in the following game and lost.
I actually noticed this throughout the season especially after the Cowboys and 1st Miami game when so many of the opposing players were injured (which would also be an interesting stat to see, 1st Buffalo game took out their QB and LB) in the game. Though many of these teams did lose the next week, very few actually covered the spread.
I'm not so sure the Jints will lose at TB.
I adhere to CHFF's quality standings and though the Jints are 1-5 vs quality opponents (team with winning records), the Bucs are 2-3 and have scored only 15 ppg against quality teams. Moreover, I've never been impressed with the Bucs. Their vaunted D allowed 33 points at Indy, who played without Marvin and Addai. They lost 3 of their last 4 games to powerhouses: SF and Carolina. Their only quality wins were against Washington, who was on the skids (last game ST played before his death), and at home against Tennessee (13-10), a team without an offense who was lucky enough to have Cleveland choke at Cincy, and getting to play at Indy, which used Sorgi at QB.
If the Jints don't turnover the ball, they'll move on to the Divisional round. It's their game to lose. The Bucs are frauds.
If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.
ask reiss
Questions will be considered for Mike's mailbagbrowse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com