My 2006 NFL Rankings (1 Viewer)

[BGP]

This is part of a ranking system I have used/modified over the past ten years or so. One of the most important parts is the belief that ranking clubs by yardage gained and allowed is wrong. I rank them by a number of other indicators, notably using points scored and allowed, and using historical data to back-up my reasoning.

This will be fun for me because I have watched this season without compiling so I really don't know how it will shake out. Let's get to it.

Here is the current offense and defense rankings in terms of points allowed by the last 16 super bowl champions.

YEAR.TM...O...D

---------------------------------

2004.nwe..4...6

2003.nwe..12..1

2002.tam..18..1

2001.nwe..6...6

2000.bal..15..1

1999.stl..1...4

1998.den..2...8

1997.den..1...7

1996.gnb..1...1

1995.dal..3...3

1994.sfo..1...6

1993.dal..2...2

1992.dal..2...5

1991.was..1...2

1990.nyg..15..1

1989.sfo..1...3

This leads to the first rule I have when ranking contenders:

The sum of their offensive and defensive rankings for true Super Bowl contenders is less than 20.

I like to refer to this sum as the magic number. Now we can list the contenders as of this week:

----------

AFC:

----------

3 contenders:

Colts (1st offense, 2nd defense) 1+2 = 3

Broncos (7th offense, 7th defense) 7+7 = 14

Chargers (3rd offense, 13th defense) 3+13 = 16

Others of note:

Steelers (11th offense, 9th defense) 11+9 = 20

Jaguars (14th offense, 6th defense) 14+6 = 20

Bengals (4th offense, 18th defense) 4+18 = 22

Chiefs (6th offense, 23rd defense) 6+23 = 29

Patriots (21st offense, 24th defense) 21+24 = 45

----------

NFC:

----------

3 contenders:

Seahawks (2nd offense, 4th defense) 2+4 = 6

Panthers (10th offense, 5th defense) 10+5 = 15

Giants (5th offense, 11th defense) 5+11 = 16

Others of note:

Cowboys (13th offense, 8th defense) 13+8 = 21

Falcons (8th offense, 15th defense) 8+15 = 23

Buccaneers (21st offense, 3rd defense) 21+3 = 24

Bears (24th offense, 1st defense) 24+1 = 25

Vikings (22nd offense, 22nd defense) 22+22 = 44

Right off the bat we can clearly see that the Colts and Seahawks are in fact the class of each conference. That doesn't guarantee a super bowl berth, but the evidence I would classify as "very strong". Very few teams attain a magic number as high as those two clubs. On the flip side, you DO see a weaker team upset a strong one and make it to the super bowl once in a while. The 2003 Panthers come to mind. But none have as yet won it all. It appears to be too difficult a task.

--------------------------------------------------

The next stat I like is efficiency. What is efficiency? Efficiency is yards divided points (scored and allowed).

Conference Title Games and Efficiencies since 1990:

2004

nwe 5474 yards, 416 points = 13.16 O, 4654 yards, 253 points = 18.40 D*$

pit 5157 yards, 343 points = 15.03 O, 3867 yards, 227 points = 17.04 D*

atl 4992 yards, 314 points = 15.90 O, 4954 yards, 309 points = 16.03 D*

phi 5398 yards, 376 points = 14.36 O, 4807 yards, 222 points = 21.65 D*

*all 2004 stats exclude week 17, since all 4 teams rested starters that week.

2003

ind 13.39 O, 14.92 D

nwe 15.11 O, 20.67 D$

car 16.41 O, 16.24 D

phi 14.14 O, 19.36 D**

2002

ten 14.69 O, 15.98 D

oak 14.34 O, 17.24 D

tam 15.09 O, 22.14 D$

phi 14.04 O, 21.17 D

2001

nwe 13.80 O, 20.54 D$

pit 17.24 O, 21.25 D

phi 15.17 O, 23.96 D

stl 13.78 O, 17.34 D

2000

bal 15.92 O, 25.12 D$

oak 12.32 O, 18.48 D

min 15.49 O, 15.94 D

nyg 17.13 O, 19.61 D

1999

tam 16.88 O, 19.45 D

stl 12.62 O, 20.89 D$

ten 13.86 O, 17.13 D

jax 14.66 O, 21.69 D <--"super bowl shuffle" team that made video

1998

nyj 14.21 O, 18.64 D

den 12.53 O, 17.06 D$

atl 13.22 O, 17.33 D

min 11.56 O, 17.95 D**

1997

den 12.89 O, 17.31 D$

pit 15.31 O, 16.28 D

sfo 14.40 O, 16.52 D

gnb 13.76 O, 18.09 D

1996

jax 18.51 O, 15.92 D <---2nd year team

nwe 13.30 O, 17.75 D

car 13.79 O, 23.61 D <-- 2nd year team

gnb 12.67 O, 20.96 D$

1995

ind 15.79 O, 16.44 D

pit 14.60 O, 14.78 D

gnb 14.77 O, 17.29 D

dal 13.66 O, 18.09 D$

1994

sdg 14.36 O, 17.37 D

pit 17.17 O, 20.12 D

dal 13.08 O, 18.60 D

sfo 12.39 O, 17.21 D$

1993

kan 15.36 O, 17.18 D

buf 16.65 O, 24.00 D

sfo 13.98 O, 18.01 D

dal 15.37 O, 21.83 D$

1992

buf 16.05 O, 17.51 D

mia 16.69 O, 17.32 D

dal 13.98 O, 17.60 D$

sfo 14.78 O, 21.44 D

1991

den 17.52 O, 20.83 D

buf 14.24 O, 17.94 D

det 14.47 O, 17.91 D

was 12.00 O, 20.71 D$

1990

lar 14.58 O, 17.72 D

buf 12.81 O, 18.76 D

nyg 14.77 O, 20.82 D$

sfo 17.25 O, 18.98 D

$ won super bowl

** clubs that were more efficient on offense and defense than their opponent they lost to.

A quick rundown here:

Teams that are more efficient on defense than their super bowl opponent are 10-5 over the past 15 years.

ALL teams with a defensive efficiency over 20 that made the super bowl WON the super bowl except two clubs: the 1993 Buffalo Bills (and that loss was to another team that was over 20) and the 2004 Eagles (to the Patriots who were not over 20).
Teams that are more efficient on offense than their super bowl opponent are 12-3 in the past 15 years.
When the efficiency advantages are split, the team with the offensive advantage is 5-3 in the past 15 years. So that could be added to the case that offense wins championships.
Teams that are more efficient on offense and defense than their opponent are 12-2 in conference game play. The two losses were the 1998 Vikings to the Falcons, and the 2003 Eagles to the Panthers
Teams that are more efficient on BOTH sides of the ball are 7-0 in the super bowl, a total of 19-2 adding conference title games.
If you are more efficient on offense than your opponent without regard to defense, you are 20-8 in conference title play in this time frame. Amazingly, such teams are merely 3-5 from 2000 on. Such teams were 11-1 from 1994-1999. The one loss was the 98 Vikings to the Falcons. I like to think that the 1990s were about offense and the 2000s have been about defense.
If you are more efficient on defense than your opponent without regard to offense, you are 16-12 in conference title games in this timeframe. This could be telling as to how defense may not really win champsionships. Such teams are 5-3 from 2000 on.
Worst offense to win the super bowl: 15.92 (2000 Ravens)
Worst defense to win the super bowl: 17.06 (1998 Broncos)
Five of the last six super bowl champs have had a defensive efficiency over 20, the only exception was the 2004 Patriots.Lets look at the 2006 contenders with all of that in mind:

AFC:

ind 12.54 O, 20.64 D

den 14.90 O, 18.40 D

sdg 12.79 O, 15.98 D

others:

pit 14.36 O, 16.52 D

jax 15.17 O, 16.73 D

cin 13.87 O, 16.44 D

kan 15.61 O, 15.45 D

nwe 16.65 O, 15.90 D

NFC:

sea 13.21 O, 18.73 D

car 13.62 O, 17.01 D

nyg 13.92 O, 17.32 D

others:

dal 15.90 O, 16.78 D

atl 14.86 O, 16.25 D

tam 16.51 O, 16.85 D

chi 16.62 O, 23.76 D

min 16.39 O, 14.97 D

Here's is what I can see. The Colts have a better offensive and defensive efficiency than anyone else in the AFC. That is so strong to me. Let me repeat, teams with such an advantage are 19-2 in conference title and super bowl play in this timeframe.

But perhaps even more interesting is that the Seahawks are panning out to be more powerful than I suspected. They have a better offensive ranking than anyone in the NFC. The only club here with a better defensive ranking is the Bears. Again, that 19-2 mark looms large.

Despite the Seahawks largess in the NFC, the Colts are superior in both categories. That again points to that 19-2 mark and a Colts super bowl win should they meet.

The only club that can really mess with all of that is - the Bears. However their offense is worse than any super bowl champ we've seen here. Its far worse than even in the 2000 Ravens. And the 2000 Ravens grade out as having the superior defense here. I'd put the odds low on the Bears getting it done, but if it happens its an event that alters some fundamental data.

------------------------------

Finally, let's look at something else. Points differential is the difference between points scored and allowed. The club with the largest differential in the super bowl has won it every time in this timeframe except two cases. Those two cases are the 1990 Giants and 2001 Patriots. Interestingly, BOTH of those clubs were coached by Bill Belichick. I know some will say Belichick was not the head coach of the Giants at that time but Belichick's defensive game plan from 1990 is hanging in the hall of fame. To clarify, this doesn't count for ALL playoff games, just the super bowl.

differentials of the current contenders:

AFC:

ind +212

den +91

sdg +126

others:

pit +61

jax +46

cin +91

kan +41

nwe +5

NFC:

sea +168

car +86

nyg +104

others:

dal +51

atl +59

tam +37

chi +62

min -40

I don't try to make picks until I see the official playoff field. I will try to keep this updated weekly from here on out.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Great post. It definitely seems like the efficiency stats in particular validate very well against historical results.Do you have a "benchmark" for both offensive and defensive efficiency? Is there any ratio between the two that predicts wins?

 

[BGP]

Here is how things have changed since two weeks ago:

----------

AFC:

----------

3 Contenders:

Colts (2nd offense, 2nd defense) 2+2 =4 (1 point worse)

Steelers (8th offense, 3rd defense) 8+3 = 11 (9 points better)

Broncos (6th offense, 6th defense) 6+6 = 12 (2 points better)

Others of note:

Chargers (4th offense, 13th defense) 4+13 = 17 (1 point worse)

Jaguars (14th offense, 7th defense) 14+7 = 21 (1 point worse)

Bengals (3rd offense, 19th defense) 3+19 = 22 (no change)

Chiefs (7th offense, 20th defense) 7+20 = 27 (2 points better)

Patriots (9th offense, 18th defense) 9+18 = 27 (18 points better)

----------

NFC:

----------

contenders:

Seahawks (1st offense, 5th defense) 1+5 = 6 (no change)

Panthers (10th offense, 4th defense) 10+4 = 14 (1 point better)

Others of note:

Giants (5th offense, 15th defense) 5+15 = 20 (4 points worse)

Redskins (13th offense, 9th defense) 13+9 = 22

Bears (24th offense, 1st defense) 24+1 = 25 (no change)

Cowboys (15th offense, 12th defense) 15+12 = 27 (6 points worse)

Buccaneers (21st offense, 8th defense) 21+8 = 29 (5 points worse)

Comments: This late in the year it is normal for the rankings not to fluctuate much. However, we see the Patriots making a enormous surge in the rankings, improving by a whopping 18 points. They've gone from 45 to 27. This makes me ponder breaking down the weekly movement over the past 15 years to catalog similar events (if any) - how did they fare in postseason? The Steelers are also making a large move, bolstered no doubt by the 41-0 blowout win over the Browns. Something else has happened this year that offhand I do not recall ever seeing - a team with a magic number under 20 is NOT going to make postseason! The Chargers are at 17 and have been eliminated. The way I look at that is it truly is an outlier event - they can still win 10 games with a win this weekend and it doesn't even matter.

In the NFC, We are down to two contenders, with the Giants slipping to 20 points. In fact, everyone has either stayed the same or gotten worse here except the Panthers, and they only improved by 1 point.

Efficiencies:

AFC

ind 13.44 O, 19.23 D

pit 14.10 O, 17.84 D

den 15.21 O, 19.00 D

sdg 13.47 O, 16.29 D

jax 15.44 O, 17.13 D

cin 13.58 O, 15.60 D

kan 15.98 O, 15.80 D

nwe 15.79 O, 15.82 D

NFC

sea 13.37 O, 19.17 D

car 13.70 O, 17.38 D

nyg 14.17 O, 16.77 D

was 15.97 O, 16.23 D

chi 16.10 O, 24.48 D

dal 16.51 O, 15.84 D

tam 17.23 O, 15.85 D

Comments: The Colts seem to have shut it down for the rest of the season. They are slipping in these rankings. Their defense has fallen under 20 and their offense has jumped above 13. They are no longer the top offense in this stat. The Seahawks have passed them. The Seahawks threaten to pass them on defense as well. The other thing I wanted to get a read on was the Bears offense. Their number here has improved from 16.61 two weeks ago to 16.10 now. The Ravens had the worst offense in this category to win a super bowl at 15.92.

TO DO list:

Teams that make a BIG move in the magic number rankings late - how do they fare in postseason?

How many clubs with a magic number less than 20 in the past 15 years failed to make postseason?

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

The Redskins seem to have made a nice move in the NFC. What was their score when you first began this thread?

 

[BGP]

The Redskins seem to have made a nice move in the NFC. What was their score when you first began this thread?

Redskins two weeks ago:16th offense, 12th defense 16+12 = 28

The Redskins have improved 6 points since then.

 

[BGP]

FINAL 2005 data:----------AFC:----------Colts (2nd offense, 2nd defense) 4 (no change)Broncos (7th offense, 4th defense) 11 (1 point better)Steelers (9th offense, 3rd defense) 12 (1 point worse)Jaguars (12th offense, 6th defense) 18 (3 points better)Bengals (4th offense, 22nd defense) 26 (4 points worse)Patriots (10th offense, 17th defense) 27 (no change)----------NFC:----------Seahawks (1st offense, 7th defense) 8 (2 points worse)Panthers (8th offense, 5th defense) 13 (1 point better)Giants (3rd offense, 14th defense) 17 (3 points better)Redskins (13th offense, 9th defense) 22 (no change)Bears (26th offense, 1st defense) 27 (2 points worse)Buccaneers (20th offense, 8th defense) 28 (1 points better)Efficiencies:AFCind 13.43 O, 19.89 Dden 14.97 O, 19.40 Dcin 13.88 O, 15.48nwe 15.39 O, 15.63 Djax 14.71 O, 17.30 Dpit 13.69 O, 17.58 DNFCsea 13.47 O, 18.70 Dchi 16.54 O, 22.32 Dtam 16.66 O, 16.22 Dnyg 14.15 O, 16.69 Dcar 13.21 O, 17.46 Dwas 15.40 O, 16.27 DI'll go over these numbers more later.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

 

[BGP]

Here is what I see:

1. The Colts are an incredibly strong #1 seed. They are more efficient on offense and defense than anyone else in their conference playoffs. The last two #1 seeds to claim that distinction were the 2004 Eagles and the 1999 Rams. Both won their conference.

2. The Broncos are a defensive club in 2005. They are higher ranked in points in the NFL on defense than offense. They have the third-best efficiency on defense among all playoff clubs.

3. The Bengals are a very weak defensive team. They sport the worst defensive efficiency among all playoff clubs.

4. The Patriots' numbers in my categories are down across-the-board compared to their title teams. If they win this super bowl, it will be Belichick's greatest accomplishment.

5. The Jaguars dropped their magic number below 20. They did it on the final weekend, but that is my cut-off point for contending clubs.

6. The Steelers are surprisingly good on offense. They are second-best in the AFC and 4th overall among playoff clubs. The defense, however, is a bit lackluster by Cowher-standards at 17.58.

7. The Seahawks are a worthy #1 seed. They have the lowest magic number among all NFC clubs.

8. The Bears are trying to win like the 2000 Ravens. Their numbers aren't quite as good as the Ravens, however. In fact, the offense is far worse.

9. The Buccaneers are fairly mediocre. They are probably too inconsistent in too many areas to get far.

10. The Giants defense is mediocre. This is one of those clubs that is probably too inconsistent to make a run a win three playoff games.

11. The Panthers are solid. This is a club that I think can be had if an inconsistent club gets hot one weekend. But it also has no glaring weakness. My biggest criticism is that the defense is giving up a few too many points for the yardage numbers they are posting.

12. The Redskins should be happy to be here. They made a great run at the end, but they seem too inconsistent as well.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Here is what I see:

1. The Colts are an incredibly strong #1 seed. They are more efficient on offense and defense than anyone else in their conference playoffs. The last two #1 seeds to claim that distinction were the 2004 Eagles and the 1999 Rams. Both won their conference.

2. The Broncos are a defensive club in 2005. They are higher ranked in points in the NFL on defense than offense. They have the third-best efficiency on defense among all playoff clubs.

3. The Bengals are a very weak defensive team. They sport the worst defensive efficiency among all playoff clubs.

4. The Patriots' numbers in my categories are down across-the-board compared to their title teams. If they win this super bowl, it will be Belichick's greatest accomplishment.

5. The Jaguars dropped their magic number below 20. They did it on the final weekend, but that is my cut-off point for contending clubs.

6. The Steelers are surprisingly good on offense. They are second-best in the AFC and 4th overall among playoff clubs. The defense, however, is a bit lackluster by Cowher-standards at 17.58.

7. The Seahawks are a worthy #1 seed. They have the lowest magic number among all NFC clubs.

8. The Bears are trying to win like the 2000 Ravens. Their numbers aren't quite as good as the Ravens, however. In fact, the offense is far worse.

9. The Buccaneers are fairly mediocre. They are probably too inconsistent in too many areas to get far.

10. The Giants defense is mediocre. This is one of those clubs that is probably too inconsistent to make a run a win three playoff games.

11. The Panthers are solid. This is a club that I think can be had if an inconsistent club gets hot one weekend. But it also has no glaring weakness. My biggest criticism is that the defense is giving up a few too many points for the yardage numbers they are posting.

12. The Redskins should be happy to be here. They made a great run at the end, but they seem too inconsistent as well.

Great analysis.I think your survey of the Bears in particular is spot-on. Remember, the Ravens did end up scoring a few TDs in the playoffs...can the Bears do that?

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Thunderchicken]

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

 

[jeff_eaglz]

Here is what I see:

1. The Colts are an incredibly strong #1 seed. They are more efficient on offense and defense than anyone else in their conference playoffs. The last two #1 seeds to claim that distinction were the 2004 Eagles and the 1999 Rams. Both won their conference.

2. The Broncos are a defensive club in 2005. They are higher ranked in points in the NFL on defense than offense. They have the third-best efficiency on defense among all playoff clubs.

3. The Bengals are a very weak defensive team. They sport the worst defensive efficiency among all playoff clubs.

4. The Patriots' numbers in my categories are down across-the-board compared to their title teams. If they win this super bowl, it will be Belichick's greatest accomplishment.

5. The Jaguars dropped their magic number below 20. They did it on the final weekend, but that is my cut-off point for contending clubs.

6. The Steelers are surprisingly good on offense. They are second-best in the AFC and 4th overall among playoff clubs. The defense, however, is a bit lackluster by Cowher-standards at 17.58.

7. The Seahawks are a worthy #1 seed. They have the lowest magic number among all NFC clubs.

8. The Bears are trying to win like the 2000 Ravens. Their numbers aren't quite as good as the Ravens, however. In fact, the offense is far worse.

9. The Buccaneers are fairly mediocre. They are probably too inconsistent in too many areas to get far.

10. The Giants defense is mediocre. This is one of those clubs that is probably too inconsistent to make a run a win three playoff games.

11. The Panthers are solid. This is a club that I think can be had if an inconsistent club gets hot one weekend. But it also has no glaring weakness. My biggest criticism is that the defense is giving up a few too many points for the yardage numbers they are posting.

12. The Redskins should be happy to be here. They made a great run at the end, but they seem too inconsistent as well.

Great analysis.I think your survey of the Bears in particular is spot-on. Remember, the Ravens did end up scoring a few TDs in the playoffs...can the Bears do that?

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, they did score 11 TDs - in four games - but only 7 on offense. 2 Were from the Defense, and 2 more on special teams....

 

[Keys Myaths]

Here is what I see:

1. The Colts are an incredibly strong #1 seed. They are more efficient on offense and defense than anyone else in their conference playoffs. The last two #1 seeds to claim that distinction were the 2004 Eagles and the 1999 Rams. Both won their conference.

2. The Broncos are a defensive club in 2005. They are higher ranked in points in the NFL on defense than offense. They have the third-best efficiency on defense among all playoff clubs.

3. The Bengals are a very weak defensive team. They sport the worst defensive efficiency among all playoff clubs.

4. The Patriots' numbers in my categories are down across-the-board compared to their title teams. If they win this super bowl, it will be Belichick's greatest accomplishment.

5. The Jaguars dropped their magic number below 20. They did it on the final weekend, but that is my cut-off point for contending clubs.

6. The Steelers are surprisingly good on offense. They are second-best in the AFC and 4th overall among playoff clubs. The defense, however, is a bit lackluster by Cowher-standards at 17.58.

7. The Seahawks are a worthy #1 seed. They have the lowest magic number among all NFC clubs.

8. The Bears are trying to win like the 2000 Ravens. Their numbers aren't quite as good as the Ravens, however. In fact, the offense is far worse.

9. The Buccaneers are fairly mediocre. They are probably too inconsistent in too many areas to get far.

10. The Giants defense is mediocre. This is one of those clubs that is probably too inconsistent to make a run a win three playoff games.

11. The Panthers are solid. This is a club that I think can be had if an inconsistent club gets hot one weekend. But it also has no glaring weakness. My biggest criticism is that the defense is giving up a few too many points for the yardage numbers they are posting.

12. The Redskins should be happy to be here. They made a great run at the end, but they seem too inconsistent as well.

Great analysis.I think your survey of the Bears in particular is spot-on. Remember, the Ravens did end up scoring a few TDs in the playoffs...can the Bears do that?

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, they did score 11 TDs - in four games - but only 7 on offense. 2 Were from the Defense, and 2 more on special teams....

7 offensive TDs are a lot more than the Bears are capable off in 4 games, methinks.Seriously. I'm sure some Bears fans want to jump on me for this...but Thomas Jones can only do so much.

 

[BGP]

My brackets:AFC:#3 Bengals over #6 Steelers#4 Patriots over #5 Jaguars#1 Colts over #4 Patriots#2 Broncos over #3 Bengals#1 Colts over #2 BroncosNFC#3 Buccaneers over #6 Redskins#5 Panthers over #4 Giants#1 Seahawks over #5 Panthers#2 Bears over #3 Buccaneers#1 Seahawks over #2 BearsColts over SeahawksI like the Panthers. I do not like their schedule. By the time they get to the Great Northwest, it will be their third road straight road game. The Seahwawks have:1. The #1 seed.2. The best magic number in their conference.3. The best point-differential in their conference (+171)4. A head coach that, when he fields a very strong team, has shown he can win super bowls and at least his conference.Its difficult to pick against all of that.So yes, Colts over Seahawks.

 

[Keysersoze666]

Is getting 50% of the teams correct in the Championship games good?I haven't had a chance to really think through your system since I just stumbled onto this thread but one of my first reactions is that it may be a bit simplistic in terms of delivering any useful information.What system wouldn't have picked the Colts and the Seahawks? Aren't the numbers you are adding up simply a basic reflection of regular season play, I guess I really mean too basic. Is it surprising that the team with the greatest point differential would almost always be the strongest team in the league? Is it surprising that a team ranked in the top 10 on offense and defense is pretty good? It seems to me that you could "find" a number of stats that would line up with the winning teams and seem to predict their overall strength. But do they reveal any extra tidbits of info that we can't figure out by simply glancing at W/L and units rankings in 5 minutes?At this point I'm uncertain of the answer but I think there's an equal chance that this could be a stat similar to the old "rush for a 100 yards in a game" stat which seems to always show how dominant teams are when that goal is achieved. However that stat alone is too simplistic to be useful BEFORE the game is played in terms of predicting what will happen.

 

[trader jake]

At this point I'm uncertain of the answer but I think there's an equal chance that this could be a stat similar to the old "rush for a 100 yards in a game" stat which seems to always show how dominant teams are when that goal is achieved. However that stat alone is too simplistic to be useful BEFORE the game is played in terms of predicting what will happen.

exactly...it makes for an interesting read though

 

[stevec]

From what I gathered from this, I think the sytem would've picke the Panthers over the Bears if he had re-done the matchups to the actuals by advancing the Skins & Steelers. Not sure, but if that's the case 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

 

[BGP]

Is getting 50% of the teams correct in the Championship games good?

I haven't had a chance to really think through your system since I just stumbled onto this thread but one of my first reactions is that it may be a bit simplistic in terms of delivering any useful information.

What system wouldn't have picked the Colts and the Seahawks? Aren't the numbers you are adding up simply a basic reflection of regular season play, I guess I really mean too basic. Is it surprising that the team with the greatest point differential would almost always be the strongest team in the league? Is it surprising that a team ranked in the top 10 on offense and defense is pretty good? It seems to me that you could "find" a number of stats that would line up with the winning teams and seem to predict their overall strength. But do they reveal any extra tidbits of info that we can't figure out by simply glancing at W/L and units rankings in 5 minutes?

At this point I'm uncertain of the answer but I think there's an equal chance that this could be a stat similar to the old "rush for a 100 yards in a game" stat which seems to always show how dominant teams are when that goal is achieved. However that stat alone is too simplistic to be useful BEFORE the game is played in terms of predicting what will happen.

My system did not predict Colts vs Seahawks. Those were my brackets, but that's not what the system was saying.What my system does is narrow down the field. It says "the champion should come from this small pool of teams here."

This year, that small pool was: colts, broncos, chargers, panthers, giants, seahawks.

The efficiencies don't even come into play until the conference championship round, which isn't until this weekend.

Right NOW, with four teams left, the system does say the Seahawks should win the super bowl.

But, sure, its simplistic and leaves things out. I think the biggest thing it doesn't take into account is the head coach. Some head coaches seem to have their clubs better prepared in the postseason than others. Historically, juggernaut #1 seeds have failed to win it all, but most of those teams were coached by the likes of Schottenheimer, Cowher, and Dungy, who have lousy playoff records.

 

[Keysersoze666]

Hey BGP, I didn't catch that you said those were essentially your brackets and not really the system.I didn't mean to be critical to the point of saying there is no value to your system, I haven't really had a chance to think it all the way through, I commend you on your efforts and being willing to share them. I would agree with your coaches comment and maybe this could be thought of as simply a foundation that could be used as a platform to pile the final factors on top of.I'll look forward to seeing how you put the efficiencies you speak of into play.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Does this mean the Steelers actually lost yesterday?

 

[P Boy]

Does this mean the Steelers actually lost yesterday?

Did I miss something, or is PIT already past DEN & into the SB?The post was about teams going to the SB, I believe.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Does this mean the Steelers actually lost yesterday?

Did I miss something, or is PIT already past DEN & into the SB?The post was about teams going to the SB, I believe.

No, I think the Colts actually beat the Steelers, have already beaten the Broncos and Seahawks, and just don't know it yet.

 

[BGP]

Good news and bad news. The bad news is a made a mistake by using the first post to mark up the conference title games. I should have used my second data set from this thread, which was produced based upon results after 15 games. The good news is that it would not have changed the prediction.

The super bowl pick also doesn't change, regardless of wether I use the first post (week 14) second post (week 16) or the final rankings. I use week 16 since some clubs sit their starters that last week. Not really fair to penalize the Seahawks for not trying (and it would not have penalized them anyway).

So here is what we have, based on regular season results minus week 17.

Seahawks (1st offense, 5th defense) 1+5 = magic number of 6

Steelers (8th offense, 3rd defense) 8+3 = magic number 11

The rule is that super bowl champs need their magic number to be lower than 20, which both clubs are.

Efficiencies (yards per point)

sea 13.37 O, 19.17 D

pit 14.10 O, 17.84 D

The Seahawks are more efficient on both sides of the ball. This holds true looking at week 14, 15, or 17. Entering this postseason, clubs who are more efficient on both sides of the ball were 19-2 in conference title games / super bowls over the past 15 years. When the Seahawks beat the Panthers for the NFC title, that number moved to 20-2 because the Seahawks were also more efficient on both sides of the ball than them. (The efficiencies were split in the Steelers-Broncos game, so it doesn't affect this). Clubs who are more efficient on both sides of the ball in the super bowl itself are a perfect 7-0 in the past 15 years. To me this holds a lot of weight because this isn't an arbitrary stat - its a very fundamental stat based upon points and yards - you can't statistically measure a club much better than that. Combined we are saying that a team usually has to be playing well to get to the super bowl, and when you have a team not only playing well but statisucally better than its opponent, you wind up with a winner.

One other number to consider is point differential. By that we mean points scored minus points allowed. Teams with a higher point differential have won 20 of the last 23 super bowls. Again, that is a very basic stat that should carry a lot of weight when it is that accurate in picking super bowl winners. Its not arbitrary at all.

Point differentials thru 15 games:

Seahawks: 435-248 = 187

Steelers: 354-237 = 117

The Seahawks have the edge here as well. Note that even if I included the final regular season games, the Seahawks would still have the edge.

Furthermore, let us discuss how these clubs are playing.

The Seahawks looked absolutely dominant in the NFC title game. And no-one can pick a weakness on their club right now. They can throw, run, and play defense.

I realize a lot of people believe the Steelers looked great in the AFC title game but I disagree. I know I'll draw heat for these next few paragraphs but I have to say what I think is the truth to put together a solid analysis. The Steelers did not look like a great club against the Broncos. For one, they were not able to run the football at all. In fact, the running game has not been working well for the Steelers lately. When the running game doesn't work, you are forced to throw more. The Steelers did that. When you have to throw more, you are prone to having your QB make mistakes. Contrary to what the general consensus was, Ben Rothlisberger made several mistakes, huge ones.

There are some stats I like that simply are not kept track of by anyone. One stat I would like to see kept track of in the NFL is interceptions dropped. It gives us a lot of info but because no-one keeps track of it, people act like a dropped interception should not be factored into evaluating a QB. Ben threw4 INTs in the AFC title game - none of them were caught.

1. On the first drive, Ben threw the classic, worst-throw-you-can-make pass. He tried to hit the WR who was about 5-10 yards downfield, and the CB jumps the route. That is a horrible throw that a veteran should never make. But Ben did it. The reason it is so horrible is that 9 times out of 10 the CB picks that off and scores a TD. But this time, Champ Bailey whiffed! It was almost like he was too excited to focus - he was 10 yards downfield before he realized he didn't have the ball. Instead, it popped straight up in the air and was caught for a 1st down.

2. Ben threw an INT into the end zone in the first quarter, but the defender couldn't quite haul it in. he had position, but couldn't make the catch. The Steelers scored on that drive.

3. Ben threw another INT into the end zone in the second quarter. The defender didn't get his hands up properly and it passed right between his arms. He could have had it, or at least knocked it down, instead a Steeler WR caught it for a TD.

4. In the third quarter with the score 24-14, Ben hit S John Lynch in the hands with the ball. Like the Bailey play, Lynch had nothing between him and the end zone. If he catches it, its a footrace. He just simply dropped the ball. Disregard all the other dropped ballls, if the Broncos just execute here its pretty much a new ball game.

To me, Ben didn't play well, but neither did the Broncos. They didn't punish Ben for his huge mistakes. But when you look at a box score you don't see that. If they just catch 2 of those 4, the Broncos are probably in the super bowl. Even if they just catch 1, but its that Lynch INT, and he scores, the Broncos may have won that game.

The point is that the Broncos gameplan was sound - they just didn't execute. I think the Steelers were fortunate to win that game.

The Steelers are not going to run the ball against the Seahawks. The Steelers do not have a dominant running game right now plus the Seawhawks excel against the run. On the flip side, I believe the Seahawks will be able to run against the Steelers. The Steelers excelled against the run in the regular season but they haven't fared well against the run in the postseason plus the Seahawks have a dominant running attack.

I think if the Seahawks mimic the basic gameplan of the Broncos - shut down the run and force Ben to pass - that Ben will throw INTs once again and this time the opponent doesn't drop them all.

Seahawks win this game. I think they should win this game easily. In fact, I think they should blow out the Steelers. I won't guarantee that. I think if the Seahawks have trouble with the 3-4 defense of the Steelers, then it turns into a close game. My system pretty much guarantees a Seahawks win tho, and I'll stand by that.

 

[The Jerk]

I would find your "magic number" and efficiencies more meaningful if they were normalized based on opponents' schedule. Seattle has played the weakest schedule in the league based on Jeff Sagarin's (USA Today) rankings, whereas the Steelers had the 9th most difficult schedule out of 32.I would think that this difference of 23 is one of the largest discrepancies between Super Bowl opponents in all 40 years the game has been held. It would be interesting to see how normalizing the numbers in this manner would change data from previous years and also how it might affect the projections for this year.Clearly, if two teams of similar ability play schedules of varying difficulty, the team playing the weaker schedule figures to produce more impressive statistics than the team playing the stronger schedule.We all know you HOPE the Steelers get blown out by the Seahawks, but if you're trying for any objectivity at all (and clearly your claim that Denver should have had 4 INTs last week pretty much shows that is not your goal), then you might want to consider a more complete statistical analysis.

 

[AB in DC]

3. Ben threw another INT into the end zone in the second quarter. The defender didn't get his hands up properly and it passed right between his arms.

No, it didn't.

 

[AB in DC]

4. In the third quarter with the score 24-14, Ben hit S John Lynch in the hands with the ball. Like the Bailey play, Lynch had nothing between him and the end zone. If he catches it, its a footrace. He just simply dropped the ball. Disregard all the other dropped ballls, if the Broncos just execute here its pretty much a new ball game.

And I have no idea what you're talking about here. My guess is that you're referring to play in the fourth quarter with the score 27-17. But that pass hit the ground about a foot in front of Lynch. And it would hardly have been a footrace considering that there were almost 20 players between him and the end zone.Unfortunately, my DVR missed most of the first quarter, so I can't verify the other two supposed interceptions, but your credibility on this is almost nil, so I wouldn't be suprised if you're exaggerating those two also.

 

[Blackhawk 69]

I would find your "magic number" and efficiencies more meaningful if they were normalized based on opponents' schedule. Seattle has played the weakest schedule in the league based on Jeff Sagarin's (USA Today) rankings, whereas the Steelers had the 9th most difficult schedule out of 32.

I would think that this difference of 23 is one of the largest discrepancies between Super Bowl opponents in all 40 years the game has been held. It would be interesting to see how normalizing the numbers in this manner would change data from previous years and also how it might affect the projections for this year.

Clearly, if two teams of similar ability play schedules of varying difficulty, the team playing the weaker schedule figures to produce more impressive statistics than the team playing the stronger schedule.

We all know you HOPE the Steelers get blown out by the Seahawks, but if you're trying for any objectivity at all (and clearly your claim that Denver should have had 4 INTs last week pretty much shows that is not your goal), then you might want to consider a more complete statistical analysis.

How dare you shine the light of truth on his/(their) fantasy.

 

[BGP]

I would find your "magic number" and efficiencies more meaningful if they were normalized based on opponents' schedule. Seattle has played the weakest schedule in the league based on Jeff Sagarin's (USA Today) rankings, whereas the Steelers had the 9th most difficult schedule out of 32.

I would think that this difference of 23 is one of the largest discrepancies between Super Bowl opponents in all 40 years the game has been held. It would be interesting to see how normalizing the numbers in this manner would change data from previous years and also how it might affect the projections for this year.

Clearly, if two teams of similar ability play schedules of varying difficulty, the team playing the weaker schedule figures to produce more impressive statistics than the team playing the stronger schedule.

We all know you HOPE the Steelers get blown out by the Seahawks, but if you're trying for any objectivity at all (and clearly your claim that Denver should have had 4 INTs last week pretty much shows that is not your goal), then you might want to consider a more complete statistical analysis.

The reason I don't like "schedule" arguements is that schedules usually are radically different for everyone, every year. If the schedule was such an overriding factor, then these 20-3 and 20-2 numbers probably don't happen. But they do happen, and while not 100% proof, I think its telling us to go this way.I also did not claim that the Broncos should have picked off all 4 of those passes. I think its very rare to have 4 opportunities like that and miss every single one, though. I also think if they pick any 2 of the 4 off, they probably win the game.

I don't know how I can be more objective than to lay out several years in advance a set of rules and guidelines that I use to measure clubs, and then follow it. The measures I have used in the past all point to a Seahawks win. I'm just following the results of my efforts. Now, if I through everything out the window and went a different way, then I guess you could wonder if I am not being objective. But I'm not doing that here.

 

[BGP]

4. In the third quarter with the score 24-14, Ben hit S John Lynch in the hands with the ball. Like the Bailey play, Lynch had nothing between him and the end zone. If he catches it, its a footrace. He just simply dropped the ball. Disregard all the other dropped ballls, if the Broncos just execute here its pretty much a new ball game.

And I have no idea what you're talking about here. My guess is that you're referring to play in the fourth quarter with the score 27-17. But that pass hit the ground about a foot in front of Lynch. And it would hardly have been a footrace considering that there were almost 20 players between him and the end zone.Unfortunately, my DVR missed most of the first quarter, so I can't verify the other two supposed interceptions, but your credibility on this is almost nil, so I wouldn't be suprised if you're exaggerating those two also.

Well, if that is the same play I saw, then I'll defer to you on that one. What angle was the camera on the play you saw? On the "live" feed, were the Steelers driving to the left or right on the play?

 

[BGP]

3. Ben threw another INT into the end zone in the second quarter. The defender didn't get his hands up properly and it passed right between his arms.

No, it didn't.

Are you saying that it was not catchable by the defender? Not even something he could have knocked down? Or are you just disputing the "arm position" here.

 

[The Jerk]

I also did not claim that the Broncos should have picked off all 4 of those passes.  I think its very rare to have 4 opportunities like that and miss every single one, though.  I also think if they pick any 2 of the 4 off, they probably win the game.

However, you did say that Ben threw 4 interceptions - none of which were caught.In fact, here it is:

Ben threw4 INTs in the AFC title game - none of them were caught.

Most neutral observers would say that the only throw of the four that normally ends up being intercepted was the first one. Ben hurried and threw off his back foot. Champ Bailey could have taken a better line to the ball. However, he didn't, and Hines Ward broke up the pass and/or interfered with him. In any case, it was not a pure drop like Jackie Smith in Super Bowl XIII.Your claimed #2 was cleanly broken up by WR Nate Washington. It was equivalent to what DBs do all the time. There was a slight CHANCE that the ball would be intercepted, but it was by no means a drop.#3 is ridiculous. It was a great pass. It's just like if a line drive is barely missed by a third baseman. Even if he reacts right away and times it perfectly, if the ball is hit far enough away from him, he will just barely miss catching the ball. It's not an error when that happens; it's the nature of sport. #4 was a short-hop and behind Lynch to boot.So I'll give you the fact that balls 1 and 2 COULD have been intercepted, but neither was a flat out drop. Also, keep in mind that if #1 is intercepted, #2 doesn't happen, as they were on the same drive. You never know what would have happened if Bailey intercepts the ball, especially if he runs it back for a TD' but could've, should've, and would've are part of every game, and there is no doubt the better team that day won the game.By the way, YOU may not like schedule arguments, but many of us do. In a large enough sample, schedule differences probably even out. In fact, most years there is probably not a big difference. But 9th vs. 32nd is one of the biggest differences you'll ever see. So I think it matters quite a bit in this case.

 

[The Jerk]

BGP, I believe you are being perfectly consistent in the use of your "magic number" and efficiencies. Furthermore, you have every right to use your systems to predict the game regardless of what I or anyone else may think. However, when you use revisionist history as reinforcing arguments to your objective system, you're now being subjective. As such, you're going to be called on it more times than not.This is what is not objective:

I realize a lot of people believe the Steelers looked great in the AFC title game but I disagree. I know I'll draw heat for these next few paragraphs but I have to say what I think is the truth to put together a solid analysis. The Steelers did not look like a great club against the Broncos. For one, they were not able to run the football at all. In fact, the running game has not been working well for the Steelers lately. When the running game doesn't work, you are forced to throw more. The Steelers did that. When you have to throw more, you are prone to having your QB make mistakes. Contrary to what the general consensus was, Ben Rothlisberger made several mistakes, huge ones.

What more would you have the Steelers do? What more can Ben possibly do?Not just this week, but the last five weeks. Pittsburgh is averaging 32.4 points per game. That's 7 ppg more than the Seahawks for their past five. And even you would probably admit that at CINC, at INDY and at DEN is a little stiffer competition than hosting WASH and CAR, both of whom traveled across the country without a bye week.If you want to praise Seattle, by all means do so. I agree that they are a worthy opponent. But don't let your jealousy of all things black and gold prevent you from seeing that there are two very good teams playing in Super Bowl XL.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I would think that this difference of 23 is one of the largest discrepancies between Super Bowl opponents in all 40 years the game has been held. It would be interesting to see how normalizing the numbers in this manner would change data from previous years and also how it might affect the projections for this year.

Sagarin's formula is super-secret, so I can't calculate Sagarin SOS for past years. But I can calculate raw SOS. That is, the team's opponents' record (with games against that team removed). In that stat, Seattle was #32 and Pittsburgh was #15. Note that the Sagarin #9 is current, which means that it includes playoff games. Everything I'm going to post here is regular season raw SOS. I have barely looked at this and I am not trying to make any particular point. I am just posting data for people to investigate.

1970----dal 0.503 (14) bal 0.385 (25) **1971----dal 0.431 (25) **mia 0.420 (26) 1972----was 0.470 (20) mia 0.396 (26) **1973----mia 0.500 (13) **min 0.497 (15) 1974----min 0.467 (21) pit 0.445 (26) **1975----pit 0.495 (13) **dal 0.473 (18) 1976----oak 0.500 (14) **min 0.445 (27) [/SIZE]1977----den 0.549 ( 5) dal 0.511 (13) **1978----dal 0.521 ( 5) pit 0.471 (23) **1979----pit 0.546 ( 6) **ram 0.475 (22) 1980----oak 0.521 ( 6) **phi 0.471 (23) 1981----cin 0.477 (25) sfo 0.475 (26) **1982----was 0.528 (11) **mia 0.472 (19) 1983----rai 0.512 (10) **was 0.508 (13) 1984----mia 0.448 (26) sfo 0.442 (27) **1985----nwe 0.508 ( 9) chi 0.500 (16) **1986----den 0.560 ( 2) nyg 0.498 (14) **1987----den 0.476 (23) was 0.438 (27) **1988----sfo 0.521 ( 7) **cin 0.500 (15) 1989----den 0.531 ( 4) sfo 0.479 (23) **1990----nyg 0.521 (10) **buf 0.483 (20) 1991----was 0.529 ( 6) **buf 0.425 (28) 1992----buf 0.504 (14) dal 0.442 (28) **1993----buf 0.521 ( 8) dal 0.512 (10) **1994----sdg 0.496 (16) sfo 0.483 (19) **1995----dal 0.512 (11) **pit 0.463 (28) 1996----gnb 0.525 ( 7) **nwe 0.487 (22) 1997----den 0.500 (18) **gnb 0.473 (25) 1998----den 0.475 (23) **atl 0.433 (29) 1999----ten 0.446 (28) ram 0.375 (31) **2000----nyg 0.458 (25) bal 0.438 (29) **2001----ram 0.496 (18) nwe 0.458 (27) **2002----oak 0.544 ( 1) tam 0.498 (18) **2003----nwe 0.508 (14) **car 0.454 (30) 2004----nwe 0.517 ( 9) **phi 0.471 (23) 2005----pit 0.504 (15) sea 0.446 (32)

 

[The Jerk]

I would think that this difference of 23 is one of the largest discrepancies between Super Bowl opponents in all 40 years the game has been held. It would be interesting to see how normalizing the numbers in this manner would change data from previous years and also how it might affect the projections for this year.

Sagarin's formula is super-secret, so I can't calculate Sagarin SOS for past years. But I can calculate raw SOS. That is, the team's opponents' record (with games against that team removed). In that stat, Seattle was #32 and Pittsburgh was #15. Note that the Sagarin #9 is current, which means that it includes playoff games. Everything I'm going to post here is regular season raw SOS. I have barely looked at this and I am not trying to make any particular point. I am just posting data for people to investigate.

Thanks, Doug.BGP may not believe it, but my suggestion to include some kind of schedule normalization is only meant as a helpful suggestion to make a more complete system. Another potential improvement might be to weight late-season games more than early-season games. Another thought might be to cap the margin of victory per game at 21 points (or some other number) to reduce the blowout factor influence. However, I understand that sometimes the beauty of a system is in its simplicity...

 

[BGP]

I would think that this difference of 23 is one of the largest discrepancies between Super Bowl opponents in all 40 years the game has been held. It would be interesting to see how normalizing the numbers in this manner would change data from previous years and also how it might affect the projections for this year.

Sagarin's formula is super-secret, so I can't calculate Sagarin SOS for past years. But I can calculate raw SOS. That is, the team's opponents' record (with games against that team removed). In that stat, Seattle was #32 and Pittsburgh was #15. Note that the Sagarin #9 is current, which means that it includes playoff games. Everything I'm going to post here is regular season raw SOS. I have barely looked at this and I am not trying to make any particular point. I am just posting data for people to investigate.

Thanks, Doug.BGP may not believe it, but my suggestion to include some kind of schedule normalization is only meant as a helpful suggestion to make a more complete system. Another potential improvement might be to weight late-season games more than early-season games. Another thought might be to cap the margin of victory per game at 21 points (or some other number) to reduce the blowout factor influence. However, I understand that sometimes the beauty of a system is in its simplicity...

My question is "what would you like to improve?"The current system operates on factors that are 20-2 and 20-3. That's pretty good. If you would tell me exactly what you want to improve (and I think you can always improve), then I think we may be able to communicate better.

My issue with SOS is that it doesn't give the complete picture. If a team has an easy schedule and sweeps it, that doesn't tell us anything about how they would have fared against a tough opponent. And that is where SOS tripped up a lot of people in 1999 when they picked against the Rams, who has a very soft schedule.

To me, attempting to adjust ratings according to SOS leads to the same amount of errors as it would if you did not adjust it. Because you have no baseline.

We don't know what is under the hat. The hat could hide a rabbit or a cat. Assuming it is a cat is not helpful, but saying we should therefore assume it is a rabbit doesn't improve things. Assuming it is a percentage of each also is not helpful.

 

[The Jerk]

My question is "what would you like to improve?"

The current system operates on factors that are 20-2 and 20-3. That's pretty good. If you would tell me exactly what you want to improve (and I think you can always improve), then I think we may be able to communicate better.

Actually, as I stated before, perhaps the genius is in the simplicity.I'll assume the results are accurate as stated. 20-2 and 20-3 is excellent. And I am pretty confident that over a sufficient span, whether that is 10 or 15 years, you'll continue to have good results, although maybe not maintaining this pace.

Where we disagree is on the efficacy of this model to function in any one particular season.

I would think that the majority of the time, the factors I listed (schedule difficulty, late season weighting, or blowout margin cap) will cancel themselves out to a certain degree. But in seasons like 2005, I see (maybe not you, but this is what I see) each of these aforementioned factors contributing error to the system in inflating the Seahawks points margin, etc., relative to the Steelers.

And maybe it's as simple as that: when all three of these characteristics favor the otherwise "lesser" team, the confidence margin of your system's prediction should be lower.

I am hearing you loud and clear: your system objectively predicts the Seahawks. I am not challenging that. However, I am suggesting there is a possibility that the system is more likely to be wrong given this specific set of circumstances than in other seasons. Right or wrong, I applaud you for putting this out there.

Please understand that it's your subjective commentary, not your system, that is the irritant. If it makes you happy to get Steelers fans riled up, then knock yourself out. But it may actually be detracting from your underlying objective message.

 

[AB in DC]

3. Ben threw another INT into the end zone in the second quarter. The defender didn't get his hands up properly and it passed right between his arms.

No, it didn't.

Are you saying that it was not catchable by the defender? Not even something he could have knocked down? Or are you just disputing the "arm position" here.

I think "The Jerk" put it well on both counts. #3 was a great pass, maybe the defender could have gotten his fingertips on it, but no way was that a potential INT.

#4 was a short hop. I think Pitt was driving left to right. There weren't too many good camera angles on that play, but it did not appear that Lynch had much of a chance to pull that in. If he was standing a yard or two closer to the LOS, then maybe, but in that case, maybe Roethlisberger wouldn't have thrown it - we don't know. But this was not an INT at all.

 

[BGP]

3. Ben threw another INT into the end zone in the second quarter. The defender didn't get his hands up properly and it passed right between his arms.

No, it didn't.

Are you saying that it was not catchable by the defender? Not even something he could have knocked down? Or are you just disputing the "arm position" here.

I think "The Jerk" put it well on both counts. #3 was a great pass, maybe the defender could have gotten his fingertips on it, but no way was that a potential INT.

#4 was a short hop. I think Pitt was driving left to right. There weren't too many good camera angles on that play, but it did not appear that Lynch had much of a chance to pull that in. If he was standing a yard or two closer to the LOS, then maybe, but in that case, maybe Roethlisberger wouldn't have thrown it - we don't know. But this was not an INT at all.

I disagree that #3 was a great pass. I remember seeing replays of that one (since they kept showing it because it was a TD pass), and to me it looked like it was a case of the defender not doing his job rather than the QB making a great throw. He did not get his arms up like he should have. As per #4, I was asking for camera angles and for which way Pitt was driving on the screen as a way to confirm to deny this was the same play I was talking about. I remember which way Pitt was driving on the play I saw.

 

[Odogs]

3.  Ben threw another INT into the end zone in the second quarter.  The defender didn't get his hands up properly and it passed right between his arms. 

No, it didn't.

Are you saying that it was not catchable by the defender? Not even something he could have knocked down? Or are you just disputing the "arm position" here.

I think "The Jerk" put it well on both counts. #3 was a great pass, maybe the defender could have gotten his fingertips on it, but no way was that a potential INT.

#4 was a short hop. I think Pitt was driving left to right. There weren't too many good camera angles on that play, but it did not appear that Lynch had much of a chance to pull that in. If he was standing a yard or two closer to the LOS, then maybe, but in that case, maybe Roethlisberger wouldn't have thrown it - we don't know. But this was not an INT at all.

I disagree that #3 was a great pass. I remember seeing replays of that one (since they kept showing it because it was a TD pass), and to me it looked like it was a case of the defender not doing his job rather than the QB making a great throw. He did not get his arms up like he should have. As per #4, I was asking for camera angles and for which way Pitt was driving on the screen as a way to confirm to deny this was the same play I was talking about. I remember which way Pitt was driving on the play I saw.

#3 was a great pass. I was at the game and sitting in that endzone. I saw two replays later and one looked like it went through his hands, but it was clear as day from the other one that it was a perfect pass.

 

[Steelers]

BGP,

I thought this thread was brilliant, it helped me to come in second in my Playoff fantasy league last season.

Any chance you are going to revisit this in the near future? Its obvious that teams must have a superior D to win championships, with at least an adequate O, as long as the 2 rankings are less than 20 they have a shot of winning the show. I'd love to see the rankings thus far this year......................................

Steelers