The Best Team Never Wins
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
This is one of the fallacies fans have been making as long as I can remember.
A team's regular season record in no way, shape or form designates which team is better. A few points of consideration.
1) Teams play different schedules so one team at 9-7 may be far better that another team at 9-7
2) Teams have injuries and personal problems and by the time playoffs come a 9-7 team may have just come together towards the end of the season, when it matters. Other teams, with better records may be falling apart come season's end.
3) Match-ups involve more than records, they involved styles. Some teams have a style that troubles better teams.
In boxing it happens all the time.Frazier clobbered ALi, Foreman clobbered Frazier That DID NOT equal Foreman clobbers ALI as the equation would imply.
Certainly the 9er team we faced was nowhere nears as well-oiled as the team that played in the play offs.
In this SB, as much as I like Browns kin Bill Belichik, I felt the Giants, regardless of record, had a more well rounded team.
Truth be told Welker's dropped pass opened the door. These two teams were evenly matched and their records meant nothing. There was no BETTER team in this match. It could have gone either way.
Well, I think what you are saying is just what I was saying....it is the HOT teams that ends up winning....not the team with the best record. That team that struggle during the year, like you said, gets healthy, gets on the same page....just improves generally in their play calling...and yes, in their matchups.
If Billy Cundiff doesn't choke and the Ravens go on to win that AFC title game...or if the 9er guy doesn't muff two punts we would have had whole other matchups, and those matchups may have been much for favorable for the Pats or against the Giants. Who knows.
-
Also, it's likely that the Giants will go 13-3 or 14-2 next year and not win the Super Bowl. See the Giants in 2008, the Packers this year. A recent trend that will likely continue with the Giants next year.
Also, it's likely that the Giants will go 13-3 or 14-2 next year and not win the Super Bowl. See the Giants in 2008, the Packers this year. A recent trend that will likely continue with the Giants next year.
A trend for a bit there was that the team with the best record in the league would not win the SB, but win it the year AFTER they had the best record.
Steelers have the best record in 2004 but don't win, but then turn around and win in 2005.
Colts have the best record in '05, don't win, but win in '06.
Green Bay did the opposite this year, they win last year as a WC, but this year they have the best record, but don't win.
One thing I may disagree with Ghoolie on somewhat is that "the best team is not always the best team". Sure, but I don't think that a team that goes say 15-1 is a fluke or anything.
In fact, in the last 15 years those teams with tremendous records have not won:
1998 Vikings 15-1 don't win
2004 Steelers 15-1 don't win
2007 Pats 16-0 don't win
2011 Packers 15-1 don't win.
A couple of these team probably peaked too soon: Packers/Steelers. A couple lost close fluky games: Pats in '07 SB, Vikings in '98 NFC title game.
-
Some of these I agree with, but to say the 1999 Rams weren't the best team that year is absurd. The Jags had a better record for sure, but is there anyone that remembers thinking anyone but the Rams could win that year? That was the first year I had a vested interest from start to finish with the NFL season. From about Week 4 or 5 on, I knew the Rams were going to win the Super Bowl. They were absolutely loaded.
-
Yawn.....r we going to put everything that is discussed on espn radio on this board. lets be original guys
"We are Americans. We don't quit doing something because it's wrong. We just keep doing the wrong thing till it turns out right." Browns maybe the most American Football team ever. -
Some of these I agree with, but to say the 1999 Rams weren't the best team that year is absurd. The Jags had a better record for sure, but is there anyone that remembers thinking anyone but the Rams could win that year? That was the first year I had a vested interest from start to finish with the NFL season. From about Week 4 or 5 on, I knew the Rams were going to win the Super Bowl. They were absolutely loaded.
Some of these I agree with, but to say the 1999 Rams weren't the best team that year is absurd. The Jags had a better record for sure, but is there anyone that remembers thinking anyone but the Rams could win that year? That was the first year I had a vested interest from start to finish with the NFL season. From about Week 4 or 5 on, I knew the Rams were going to win the Super Bowl. They were absolutely loaded.
Well, though it was styled "the best team never wins", yes, I really meant the "team with the best record"....which was obvious from my listing.
-
Yawn.....r we going to put everything that is discussed on espn radio on this board. lets be original guys
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
Hey forget Cundiff, what about the catchable endzone pass that was dropped?
The teams were pretty balanced in the playoffs this year.
Still, the distance between the playoff teams and the Browns seems huge.
Yep, it is a game of inches. And though the distance between the Browns and playoff teams seems huge, I suspect it is really not that huge at all.
Just like in those playoff games, the Browns, with a few better bounces of the ball could have probably been 8-8.
And perhaps all it takes is 2-3 quality players to put them over the edge.
-
They may have won by inches, but it might not have been that close. There was that Eddie George touchdown where he was clearly down before that. Not to say they wouldn't have scored without it, but you never know. Had that not have counted, it could have set a different tone for the game. I still say the Rams were far and away the best team that year.
-
They may have won by inches, but it might not have been that close. There was that Eddie George touchdown where he was clearly down before that. Not to say they wouldn't have scored without it, but you never know. Had that not have counted, it could have set a different tone for the game. I still say the Rams were far and away the best team that year.
They may have won by inches, but it might not have been that close. There was that Eddie George touchdown where he was clearly down before that. Not to say they wouldn't have scored without it, but you never know. Had that not have counted, it could have set a different tone for the game. I still say the Rams were far and away the best team that year.
OK, maybe, but they didn't have the best record.
Lets put it this way, they say that if the NCAA tournament were played 1000 times that you would have a different outcome each time.
If we started right here, right now and re-played the NFL playoffs, what chances do you think that it would be the Giants that win? Probably not a very good chance. They probably lose to the Packers, the Steelers probably end up beating the Broncos, the Saints might beat the 49ers etc. etc. If you did it all over again it would probably come out completely different. Serendipity.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
This is one of the fallacies fans have been making as long as I can remember.
A team's regular season record in no way, shape or form designates which team is better. A few points of consideration.
1) Teams play different schedules so one team at 9-7 may be far better that another team at 9-7
2) Teams have injuries and personal problems and by the time playoffs come a 9-7 team may have just come together towards the end of the season, when it matters. Other teams, with better records may be falling apart come season's end.
3) Match-ups involve more than records, they involved styles. Some teams have a style that troubles better teams.
In boxing it happens all the time.Frazier clobbered ALi, Foreman clobbered Frazier That DID NOT equal Foreman clobbers ALI as the equation would imply.
Certainly the 9er team we faced was nowhere nears as well-oiled as the team that played in the play offs.
In this SB, as much as I like Browns kin Bill Belichik, I felt the Giants, regardless of record, had a more well rounded team.
Truth be told Welker's dropped pass opened the door. These two teams were evenly matched and their records meant nothing. There was no BETTER team in this match. It could have gone either way.
Well, I think what you are saying is just what I was saying....it is the HOT teams that ends up winning....not the team with the best record. That team that struggle during the year, like you said, gets healthy, gets on the same page....just improves generally in their play calling...and yes, in their matchups.
If Billy Cundiff doesn't choke and the Ravens go on to win that AFC title game...or if the 9er guy doesn't muff two punts we would have had whole other matchups, and those matchups may have been much for favorable for the Pats or against the Giants. Who knows.
Well, I think what you are saying is just what I was saying....it is the HOT teams that ends up winning....not the team with the best record. That team that struggle during the year, like you said, gets healthy, gets on the same page....just improves generally in their play calling...and yes, in their matchups.
If Billy Cundiff doesn't choke and the Ravens go on to win that AFC title game...or if the 9er guy doesn't muff two punts we would have had whole other matchups, and those matchups may have been much for favorable for the Pats or against the Giants. Who knows.
Well, here we go again, define a hot team. The Broncos surely looked hot going through the first round of the play offs, then choked big time at Gillette. As far as the team with the best records, you have to look deeper into their schedule. NE this season is a prime example. Best record in the AFC, 13-3. BUT, they only played two teams with a winning record this season and lost both of those games, and another one to a division rival that finished 6-10. They only faced five teams all season with a defense that finished rated in the top half. You can make the argument from that, that the Ravens, Steelers, and Houston were "better" teams. The Packers actually had a very easy schedule also, they only played five winning teams all season and didn't play a defense that finished better than 13th all season. That can definitely have a tendency to help a W-L record.
-
Well, I think what you are saying is just what I was saying....it is the HOT teams that ends up winning....not the team with the best record. That team that struggle during the year, like you said, gets healthy, gets on the same page....just improves generally in their play calling...and yes, in their matchups.
If Billy Cundiff doesn't choke and the Ravens go on to win that AFC title game...or if the 9er guy doesn't muff two punts we would have had whole other matchups, and those matchups may have been much for favorable for the Pats or against the Giants. Who knows.
Well, here we go again, define a hot team. The Broncos surely looked hot going through the first round of the play offs, then choked big time at Gillette. As far as the team with the best records, you have to look deeper into their schedule. NE this season is a prime example. Best record in the AFC, 13-3. BUT, they only played two teams with a winning record this season and lost both of those games, and another one to a division rival that finished 6-10. They only faced five teams all season with a defense that finished rated in the top half. You can make the argument from that, that the Ravens, Steelers, and Houston were "better" teams. The Packers actually had a very easy schedule also, they only played five winning teams all season and didn't play a defense that finished better than 13th all season. That can definitely have a tendency to help a W-L record.
Well, here we go again, define a hot team. The Broncos surely looked hot going through the first round of the play offs, then choked big time at Gillette. As far as the team with the best records, you have to look deeper into their schedule. NE this season is a prime example. Best record in the AFC, 13-3. BUT, they only played two teams with a winning record this season and lost both of those games, and another one to a division rival that finished 6-10. They only faced five teams all season with a defense that finished rated in the top half. You can make the argument from that, that the Ravens, Steelers, and Houston were "better" teams. The Packers actually had a very easy schedule also, they only played five winning teams all season and didn't play a defense that finished better than 13th all season. That can definitely have a tendency to help a W-L record.
Well, as Bill Parcells said, you are what your record is, not what it could have been. All I can say is that the Pats had the AFC's best record, and did go to the SB.
Were the Packers overrated with their gaudy 15-1 record? No one that saw them play for most of the season would think so. But they definitely peaked too early, and the Giant definitely got "hot" seeing that they were 7-7 going into the last 2 weeks of the season. Nothing the Giants did prior to those last two games gave any indication that they could be SB worthy....but they peaked and got hot and the Packers with the best record cooled off.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login