We have 5 other rivals. We play 2 games against a specific team. Our rivals, regardless of who, play 10 games total. Even if this team manage to take 5 points off us. If they can take 25 points off our rivals, it'd be worth it.

This is a completely false way of looking at things. If we drop 5 points and everyone around us drops 5 points, that's not "worth it", we're just no better off than before. Just because 5x5 is bigger than just 1x5 doesn't give us any sort of net gain. This notion that clubs play two games against us and 36 games against everyone else is completely broken because fundamentally they still just play everyone twice and points get shared around.

Your argument has to either boil down to one of two things. Either an assumption that we can beat strong teams better than clubs around us can beat strong teams, which is maybe fair based off last season (though only really last season). Or you're just assuming that we'll take more points off specific clubs than our rivals will, in which case I just think you're being optimistic for no reason.

Basically what you're saying is that if every club in the league was world-class calibre and we were just playing a league of Real Madrids and Juventuses, we'd be well on track to finish higher in the league, and personally I think that's bollocks.

Say we get full points off Everton. If they take 5 points off all our rivals except Chelsea. Based off these 2 away and home games, we'd be 2nd placed

So you're saying that if we just assume we'll win all our games against certain clubs and most of our rivals will drop points, then we'll be doing really well in the league? How is that anything other than an unrealistic and completely obvious statement to make?