demedici
I wonder what one loss Trailbzr refers to...the horrible one to the Dolphins, or the loss of the one player the team couldn't really afford to lose....or the loss mentally of a volatile WR who no longer has a top 3 QB throwing the ball to him 6-7 times a game....or the collective loss of a step the team's already overrated defense (buoyed by teams needing to come from so far behind early last year) seems to have suffered...or the disheartening loss that happened sometime between last season's regular season finale and this season...or the loss of an admittedly average RB and average TE for a couple of games.

I don't think that the Patriots are a terrible team. They're not 40 points worse than last season. But their three games this season have shown them to be a very flawed team, and one that isn't in the same league as last year's team. That's largely what the system was meant to determine, and currently the findings seem to line up with what viewing the games suggests.

Still, I think everyone should probably give it more than 3 games to really dig into the results.
10:34 AM Sep 25th

bjames
1) It seems to me that it is more interesting to ask the question “What do this season’s games tell us about the quality of the teams”, rather than hedge your bets (like everybody else is doing) by riding on last season. I agree it is speculative, and it may well prove to be wrong. But I’d rather be wrong than just chirp along with everybody else.

2) The Patriots, Jets and Dolphins have each played three games, and in each case two of those three games are against one another. They’re all 1-1 against each other. That leaves those three teams kind of locked in one vs. another, but with only three games to place them in relation to the rest of the league. All three of those games look bad. The Patriots barely beat Kansas City, at home. The Dolphins were routed in Arizona. The Jets were beaten by 19 in San Diego. There’s no game there that sticks up for the quality of the group.

3) But as Trailbizarre points out, with perhaps undue harshness, this is really not enough to reach a conclusion, it’s very speculative, and it seems unlikely to hold up for the duration. But if it does, I want full credit for being the only guy who had the stones to say the Patriots sucked after they started out 2-1.

4) It is certainly true that I don’t know crap about football.

5) The Giants beat Washington by 9 points at home, not really a massive domination. Their “output scores” are 111.6, for beating Washington by 9, 106.1, for thrashing St. Louis, and 104.9, for beating the Bengals in overtime. Washington’s scores are 104.6, for the loss to the Giants, 111.0, for beating New Orleans, and 110.5, for beating Arizona. So Washington (or, as the politicians call it, Warshington) is 7 points behind for a 9-point loss on the road, but +4.9 in the second week and +5.6 in the third.

6) I don’t write about gambling.

7) I doubt that NFL games, in the long run, will be closer than the system predicts. But that may be true early in the season. As the season goes on, the random up-and-down performance lines of teams will tend to push the teams toward the center, reducing the margins. Early in the season, I would suspect that our margins will be too large. I’ll try to remember to check.

12:32 AM Sep 25th

beta461
Starting with the supposition that gambling is legal; how does your method stack up against Vegas lines?
6:33 PM Sep 24th

800redsox9
You guys don't know crap about football. Chicago will easily beat the Eagles.
10:42 PM Sep 23rd