msj Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Thought I would start a new thread since the Tebow thread keeps going off topic and we obviously want to discuss other things than his holiness. So, who's going to win next week? I'm thinking: Pittsburgh beats Denver Houston beats Cincinnati NO beats the Lions NY beats Atlanta Although I could see Cincinnati and/or Atlanta winning - a toss up. What sez you? Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Romney beats Paul. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) Cincy Pitt Nola G-men Edited January 2, 2012 by Boges Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 I'm just going to jump ahead and predict the winner of the Super Bowl ..... Green Bay Packers!! Quote
Shady Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Let's see, I got... Texans beating Bengals. Lions beating Saints. Falcons beating Giants. Steelers beating Broncos. Quote
msj Posted January 2, 2012 Author Report Posted January 2, 2012 I'm just going to jump ahead and predict the winner of the Super Bowl ..... Green Bay Packers!! I'm going to jump ahead of BC_2004 and predict Romney! Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 American Woman, on 02 January 2012 - 10:12 AM, said: I'm just going to jump ahead and predict the winner of the Super Bowl ..... Green Bay Packers!! I'm going to jump ahead of BC_2004 and predict Romney! Then we're likely both right. What do Mitt Romney and the Green Bay Packers have in common? Good odds Quote
sharkman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Does Mitt have an arm or what, eh? Quote
The_Squid Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 I don't follow NFL, although I do watch it occasionally. But I am not going to be an a-hole like what occured in any CFL thread that comes up where people feel the need to slag the league at every opportunity! SeaHawks suck. This makes me sad. They need a better QB Go 49ers! Quote
Shady Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Then we're likely both right. What do Mitt Romney and the Green Bay Packers have in common? Good odds Nope. There's no way Green Bay's winning with that pathetic defense. Quote
Boges Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Nope. There's no way Green Bay's winning with that pathetic defense. Or the Patriots with their pathetic defense? Or the Saints with their Pathetic defense? Or the Niners with Alex Smith? Or the Lions who's defense got schooled by a backup? Or Pittsburgh who's QB is hurt and Running back is out for the season? Or Baltimore who lost to Jacksonville and Seattle? Or the Texans with TJ Yates, Jake Delhomme and Jeff Garcia? Or the Giants who lost to the Redskins twice? Or Cincy with their rookie QB and the fact they haven't beaten a quality team this year. So I guess Atlanta is winning the Super Bowl this year. Edited January 3, 2012 by Boges Quote
Shady Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Or the Patriots with their pathetic defense? Or the Saints with their Pathetic defense? Or the Niners with Alex Smith? Or the Lions who's defense got schooled by a backup? Or Pittsburgh who's QB is hurt and Running back is out for the season? Or Baltimore who lost to Jacksonville and Seattle? Or the Texans with TJ Yates, Jake Delhomme and Jeff Garcia? Or the Giants who lost to the Redskins twice? Or Cincy with their rookie QB and the fact they haven't beaten a quality team this year. So I guess Atlanta is winning the Super Bowl this year. The Packers are last in the league in total defense. The Saints are ranked 9 spots a head of them. And are ranked 1st in offense too. Quote
Boges Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Yet they somehow went 15-1. I would bet on the Saints if it wasn't for the fact they'd have to play in Lambeau. When the Saints won the Super Bowl, every playoff game they won was inside. Quote
Shady Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Yet they somehow went 15-1. Yep, they're a pretty good team. I just don't think their defense will hold up in the playoffs. I guess we can agree to disagree. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Yep, they're a pretty good team. I just don't think their defense will hold up in the playoffs. I guess we can agree to disagree. It held up quite well during their 15-1 season. Against the Lions this past weekend, too - a nice win even without Rogers. Too bad for the Lions that they lost - puts them in a tougher position in the playoffs. Edited January 4, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Shady Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 It held up quite well during their 15-1 season. Actually it didn't. They won in spite of it. But I just think that when a team has the worst ranked defense in the league, it's going to catch up to them as they go further in the playoffs. I guess we can also agree to disagree. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Actually it didn't. They won in spite of it. But I just think that when a team has the worst ranked defense in the league, it's going to catch up to them as they go further in the playoffs. I guess we can also agree to disagree. Why would it "catch up with them" in the playoffs when it didn't the whole season? Quote
msj Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Posted January 4, 2012 Why would it "catch up with them" in the playoffs when it didn't the whole season? It may "catch up with them" in the post season because playoff teams tend to be better, on average, than the teams that are played during the regular season. And, sure enough, 2011 was a strange season of weak schedules. Note that GB is ranked as playing as 28 (as in easy), Pittsburgh at 29, NE at 31, NO at 26, Hou at 30, SF at 32. Interesting that Bal and Atlanta played average (well, near average) schedules. Could be an interesting playoff series - no historically great team (by DVOA measures - see link above) and the top 6 teams (by DVOA - see link) all happen to have played weak schedules. Smells like an upset or two or four is in the making. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Boges Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 It may "catch up with them" in the post season because playoff teams tend to be better, on average, than the teams that are played during the regular season. And, sure enough, 2011 was a strange season of weak schedules. Note that GB is ranked as playing as 28 (as in easy), Pittsburgh at 29, NE at 31, NO at 26, Hou at 30, SF at 32. Interesting that Bal and Atlanta played average (well, near average) schedules. Could be an interesting playoff series - no historically great team (by DVOA measures - see link above) and the top 6 teams (by DVOA - see link) all happen to have played weak schedules. Smells like an upset or two or four is in the making. Ranking difficulty of schedules Who had the most difficult schedule? Perhaps they had a difficult schedule because they played teams that had good records, perhaps because they had an easy schedule. KC beating the Packers makes their schedule tougher but it makes Green Bay's softer. It's also based on certain divisions. Recent history would say that the AFC West and NFC West are bad divisions. This year the AFC South is a pretty cruddy division. Just keep in mind that every team that won a division played almost an identical schedule as the other teams in their conference minus 2 games. Quote
msj Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Ranking difficulty of schedules Who had the most difficult schedule? Perhaps they had a difficult schedule because they played teams that had good records, perhaps because they had an easy schedule. KC beating the Packers makes their schedule tougher but it makes Green Bay's softer. It's also based on certain divisions. NSS. Before whining about the statistical methodology I suggest you follow the site for a while and read up on the methodology first. Recent history would say that the AFC West and NFC West are bad divisions. This year the AFC South is a pretty cruddy division. Just keep in mind that every team that won a division played almost an identical schedule as the other teams in their conference minus 2 games. Yes, one would see that also by looking up the DVOA for the teams in those divisions. That would also all go into the stats already provided. Other people prefer to use W-L stats such as this. To each their own. I do think, however, that playoff teams are, and face, tougher opponents, on average, through the 3 or 4 games it takes to win a Super Bowl, than the teams they face during the year. Edited January 4, 2012 by msj Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Boges Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I do think, however, that playoff teams are, and face, tougher opponents, on average, through the 3 or 4 games it takes to win a Super Bowl, than most teams will play during the year. Well obviously because you're playing to top 6 teams in your conference and the best team in the other conference. In the AFC you have 3 playoff teams from the North. Cincy got a two last place games outside of the games they played in common with their division. (Buffalo and Denver) They went 1-1. They also got to play the AFC South and NFC West. So you have Jville, Indy, Zona, St. Louis and Seattle. They also got to play the Browns twice. They never beat the Steelers or the Ravens and also lost to the Niners and Texans. All playoff teams. So is that schedule easy or hard? 6 of their games were against playoff teams and 10 of there games were against non-playoff teams. I'm betting your ratings system has Jville having a moderately difficult schedule with 2 games against Houston, a game against the Saints, Falcons, Steelers, Ravens and Bengals. But by that same schedule all those teams get fairly easy schedules. Edited January 4, 2012 by Boges Quote
msj Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Posted January 4, 2012 I'm betting your ratings system has Jville having a moderately difficult schedule with 2 games against Houston, a game against the Saints, Falcons, Steelers, Ravens and Bengals. But by that same schedule all those teams get fairly easy schedules. Why don't you check for yourself? Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Boges Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Why don't you check for yourself? According to this link http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/1299408-nfl-strength-of-schedule-after-week-17-2011 Detroit, Chicago and Minny get very high strength of schedules while Green Bay gets a very low one. Or even more perplexing the Niners get the second worse strength of schedule while the Rams get the top figure. They only two games different from each other. Quote
msj Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Posted January 4, 2012 According to this link http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/1299408-nfl-strength-of-schedule-after-week-17-2011 Detroit, Chicago and Minny get very high strength of schedules while Green Bay gets a very low one. Or even more perplexing the Niners get the second worse strength of schedule while the Rams get the top figure. They only two games different from each other. Hmmm, that's the same link that I already provided in my post above. Do you even bother to click on the links provided? As for SoS and the 49ers'- well, if they played themselves twice I'm sure they would not have had the second easiest schedule. Same with Green Bay. Yes, we know about these issues with SoS but it doesn't mean that SoS isn't interesting to consider. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
msj Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Posted January 5, 2012 Senior FO writer Mike Tanier has a good article looking at X's and O's from the teams that are playing on Saturday: Plays NFL Wild Card Teams Can't Live Without. This is what love about football - strategy! The stats side is just a bonus. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.