Super Bowl Losers Effect/Madden Effect (1 Viewer)

[a_f13nd]

Has anyone downgraded the whole Seattle Offense/team? I certainly have.

I think there's something to be said about avoiding all people from a team. I avoided the Packers and Saints last year, and it worked out well. Not avoiding Eagles players, such as T.O., eventually hurt me, however.

Teams that lose the Super Bowl have ridiculously hard schedules, much tougher than the one's that helped them get there.

Look at recent years, such as with Oakland. Many had Oakland players highly rated, but they fell to pieces the year after losing the Super Bowl.

The Eagles, too, fell to utter pieces after losing the Super Bowl. Part of that has to do with McNabb and part of it has to do with Owens. But perhaps both have to do with the Madden Curse Effect.

Now, we have Shaun Alexander on the cover of Madden AND as a Super Bowl loser. Is there any reason to believe that he will somehow escape this fate? He's a consensus top-3 back. He's scored a million TDs. But he's coming off an above average TD season. Smells like a Priest Holmes type situation, where he falls off the cliff midseason this year. Or, worse.

Moreover, an offense based around SA will utterly crumble without him. The WR corps has broken Darrel Jackson, coming off injury and Nate Burleson who's another huge bust. Tight Ends are nothing special. Hasselback is a good QB, but his consistency makes him picked way higher than where he'll likely perform. The D is horrible away, though occasionally alright at Home.

Without, SA, I don't see a single bright spot on this team. And, if things go the way they might go, I think there's a chance the whole team busts. At the least I don't see most/any of the team performing to its ADP.

Am I crazy on this, or does anyone else feel similarly?

 

[Bri]

Injuries can "kill" any teams chances whether they were in the Supe or not. "Everyyone" on the eagles was hurt last year at some point, or so it seemed.

IMO the thing to look for is complacency if you're trying to find a Supe team that'll bust right after. I don't think that's likely under Holmgren. He wasn't satisfied and will surely want them back to win this time.

 

[Wu-banger]

the trend is troubling and worth mentioning....not sure if I could pass on SA at the top of the draft though.......

All the Big 3 RB's have ????'s ...LT = new QB , LJ = New coach , SA = Madden curse , SB lose , No Hutchinson.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Teams that lose the Super Bowl have ridiculously hard schedules, much tougher than the one's that helped them get there.

That's not true for a few reasons. For starters, the Seahawks have an easier schedule than the 49ers. In the modern NFL (i.e., since 2002) the Super Bowl teams don't have a tougher schedule than anyone else. The Steelers have an 'easier' schedule than the Bengals, since Cincinnati won the AFC North. Only two games out of 16 are determined by record the previous year.Moreover, I'm not sure this would be relevant anyway, since even if Seattle had the hardest schedule in the league according to pre-season rankings, that wouldn't mean much. Pre-season SOS rankings have no correlation to end of season SOS rankings. Basically, a schedule that looks really hard ends up being no harder than a schedule that looks real easy on average.

But that point isn't relevant here, since Seattle's schedule looks easy.

Without, SA, I don't see a single bright spot on this team.

Why do you think Seattle made the Super Bowl? Luck? Without LaDainian Tomlinson there wasn't a bright spot on the 2003 Chargers but they wont just four games. Seattle didn't lose a meaningful game for over four months last year.

 

[redsoxfan]

I think you're logic here is seriously flawed. First of all, as Chase pointed out, the schedule difficulty doesn't work the way it used to. If anything I think you really need to look at the fact that the Seahawks have a bunch of teams in their division that are all defensively challenged and give them a bump up.

Secondly, I don't know how you can dismiss Hasslebeck (who was a top-5 fantasy QB last year) or DJax, whose pre-injury per-game numbers last year were just insanely good.

I do think there is some merit to the idea that super-bowl teams struggle the year after they play, but I personally think this is more of a reflection that they have played more games than any other teams. And in many cases the extra playoff games are against the toughest teams there are. They also have 4-5 weeks less time during the offseason, most of which is the time that all the non-superbowl teams use for rest and recuperation. Put all that together and I think what you find is that most of the superbowl teams are struggling the year after they make it because there is a higher risk of injury to their players the following year.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

Let's see:

-The Seahawks have the one of the easiest schedules in the league

-The best QB in the NFC

-An absolutely dominant RB

-They play in a cupcake division

-They play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadiums.

-They have the best LT in football

-A great young defense

-A great coach

-lots of talent at WR

-And they want nothing more than to rid themselves of the bitter taste losing in the super bowl left in their mouths.

Sounds like a recipe for failure (both fantasy and otherwise)

 

[ruelvis]

u might want to look at the free agent tracker to see how complacent they've been...from the home page go to tools. nobody mentioned losing hutchinson or jurevicius but they made some decent acquisitions as well, particularly on the defensive side of the ball. IMO losing a OG isnt as bad as losing an OT. i'd be more worried if they payed hutch the big bucks and didnt get peterson , defensive depth etc.

personally, when u compare the seahawks to the past super bowl losers, i think u are comparing apples and oranges, but commend u on your investigation.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

As far as the comparison to the Eagles goes...I think that you have to look at the consistant playoff runs the Eagles made before finally making it to the Super Bowl. I'd say that they wasted a lot of their best years losing in the NFC title game. Just because they finally came back down to earth last year doesn't lend any credibility to the whole one year wonder theory.

 

[a_f13nd]

Let's see:

-The Seahawks have the one of the easiest schedules in the league

-The best QB in the NFC

-An absolutely dominant RB

-They play in a cupcake division

-They play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadiums.

-They have the best LT in football

-A great young defense

-A great coach

-lots of talent at WR

-And they want nothing more than to rid themselves of the bitter taste losing in the super bowl left in their mouths.

Sounds like a recipe for failure (both fantasy and otherwise)

I agree on the surface it sound ridiculous. However, Gannon was coming off an MVP year. And McNabb was and is arguably better than Hasselback.Bad stuff sometimes happens. And, I plan on saving this post for when Shaun Alexander is injured and the team mysteriously drops 10 in a row. It will happen.

As said earlier, though, a longer season against tough teams means less rest. I agree with that point.

 

[JaxBill]

Injuries can "kill" any teams chances whether they were in the Supe or not. "Everyyone" on the eagles was hurt last year at some point, or so it seemed.

IMO the thing to look for is complacency if you're trying to find a Supe team that'll bust right after. I don't think that's likely under Holmgren. He wasn't satisfied and will surely want them back to win this time.

I think that injuries are a huge issue. The Eagles had few injuries in '04 and had the bottom drop out last year. Injuries were a major problem for Carolina in '04.A lot of teams that go far do so, in part, because they stayed relatively healthy. It just seems like the Law of averages hits the next year.

Unless those injuries crop up, though, I wouldn't summarily dismiss Seattle.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let's see:

-The Seahawks have the one of the easiest schedules in the league

-The best QB in the NFC

-An absolutely dominant RB

-They play in a cupcake division

-They play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadiums.

-They have the best LT in football

-A great young defense

-A great coach

-lots of talent at WR

-And they want nothing more than to rid themselves of the bitter taste losing in the super bowl left in their mouths.

Sounds like a recipe for failure (both fantasy and otherwise)

-Pre-season strength of schedule is irreelvant-I don't think Hasselbeck is significantly better than several other QBs in the NFC

-True

-They did play in a cupcake division, one which will certainly be tougher this year

-Didn't they play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadia when they were horrible?

-Probably true

-Great might be overstating it quite a bit

-Not sure how much that's worth, but I agree Holmgren's had a great career

-Lots of depth/talent here for sure, but I don't think they're in the top five

-This applies to every SB losing team

 

[Chase Stuart]

I plan on saving this post for when Shaun Alexander is injured and the team mysteriously drops 10 in a row. It will happen.

Is this a definite?If you had to put percentages down, how likely is:

1) Alexander to get injured; and

2) Seattle to lose 10 in a row?; and

3) Seattle to lose 5 in a row?

 

[a_f13nd]

I plan on saving this post for when Shaun Alexander is injured and the team mysteriously drops 10 in a row. It will happen.

Is this a definite?If you had to put percentages down, how likely is:

1) Alexander to get injured; and

2) Seattle to lose 10 in a row?; and

3) Seattle to lose 5 in a row?

Quite unlikely. Perhaps impossible.1) 50+%

2) .01%

3) 20%

 

[a_f13nd]

Let's see:

-The Seahawks have the one of the easiest schedules in the league

-The best QB in the NFC

-An absolutely dominant RB

-They play in a cupcake division

-They play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadiums.

-They have the best LT in football

-A great young defense

-A great coach

-lots of talent at WR

-And they want nothing more than to rid themselves of the bitter taste losing in the super bowl left in their mouths.

Sounds like a recipe for failure (both fantasy and otherwise)

-Pre-season strength of schedule is irreelvant-I don't think Hasselbeck is significantly better than several other QBs in the NFC

-True

-They did play in a cupcake division, one which will certainly be tougher this year

-Didn't they play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadia when they were horrible?

-Probably true

-Great might be overstating it quite a bit

-Not sure how much that's worth, but I agree Holmgren's had a great career

-Lots of depth/talent here for sure, but I don't think they're in the top five

-This applies to every SB losing team

All good points.

 

[ruelvis]

Let's see:

-The Seahawks have the one of the easiest schedules in the league

-The best QB in the NFC

-An absolutely dominant RB

-They play in a cupcake division

-They play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadiums.

-They have the best LT in football

-A great young defense

-A great coach

-lots of talent at WR

-And they want nothing more than to rid themselves of the bitter taste losing in the super bowl left in their mouths.

Sounds like a recipe for failure (both fantasy and otherwise) 

-Pre-season strength of schedule is irreelvant-I don't think Hasselbeck is significantly better than several other QBs in the NFC

-True

-They did play in a cupcake division, one which will certainly be tougher this year

-Didn't they play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadia when they were horrible?

-Probably true

-Great might be overstating it quite a bit

-Not sure how much that's worth, but I agree Holmgren's had a great career

-Lots of depth/talent here for sure, but I don't think they're in the top five

-This applies to every SB losing team

 

[doubledown_33]

I have been thinking the same thing about the seattle players going into this season. Logically, there seems to be no reason why the relevant seattle fantasy players should not live up to their avg draft position but the facts are facts - look at all the past SB losers recently and how they have fared the next season. Curses, jinxes, etc are silly and nobody wants to admit they believe in them but for me, I have to give this "trend" as of late some serious consideration when it comes to drafting seattle players. I own the #3 pick in my draft this year and if SA is there, I'll take him. But when it comes to drafting guys like Hass, DJax, Burleson I'll seriously have to consider passing soley on the basis of the recent trend for past SB losers.

 

[thayman]

Has anyone downgraded the whole Seattle Offense/team? I certainly have.

I think there's something to be said about avoiding all people from a team. I avoided the Packers and Saints last year, and it worked out well. Not avoiding Eagles players, such as T.O., eventually hurt me, however.

Teams that lose the Super Bowl have ridiculously hard schedules, much tougher than the one's that helped them get there.

Look at recent years, such as with Oakland. Many had Oakland players highly rated, but they fell to pieces the year after losing the Super Bowl.

The Eagles, too, fell to utter pieces after losing the Super Bowl. Part of that has to do with McNabb and part of it has to do with Owens. But perhaps both have to do with the Madden Curse Effect.

Now, we have Shaun Alexander on the cover of Madden AND as a Super Bowl loser. Is there any reason to believe that he will somehow escape this fate? He's a consensus top-3 back. He's scored a million TDs. But he's coming off an above average TD season. Smells like a Priest Holmes type situation, where he falls off the cliff midseason this year. Or, worse.

Moreover, an offense based around SA will utterly crumble without him. The WR corps has broken Darrel Jackson, coming off injury and Nate Burleson who's another huge bust. Tight Ends are nothing special. Hasselback is a good QB, but his consistency makes him picked way higher than where he'll likely perform. The D is horrible away, though occasionally alright at Home.

Without, SA, I don't see a single bright spot on this team. And, if things go the way they might go, I think there's a chance the whole team busts. At the least I don't see most/any of the team performing to its ADP.

Am I crazy on this, or does anyone else feel similarly?

and Big Ben was on his way to shoot a Campbell's Soup commercial.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

I agree on the surface it sound ridiculous. However, Gannon was coming off an MVP year. And McNabb was and is arguably better than Hasselback.

As said earlier, though, a longer season against tough teams means less rest. I agree with that point.

Refresh my memory...How old was Gannon again? Meanwhile, Hasselbeck is just entering the prime of his career while playing behind a dominant offensive line with a top 3 RB to hand the ball off to and plenty of talented WR's to throw to. McNabb is no doubt a great talent...But he also had to throw the ball an insane amount of times last year because of their complete lack of a running game. That left him open to taking a huge amount of shots from the defense and he paid the price for it. The demise of Eagles last year also had a lot to do with their defense that was getting up their in age. The same can't be said for the Seahawks defense. The Seahawks have a defense that is young, fast, and on the verge of becoming a great unit.

Bad stuff sometimes happens. And, I plan on saving this post for when Shaun Alexander is injured and the team mysteriously drops 10 in a row. It will happen.

So bad stuff "sometimes" happens? And then you go on to make the claim that SA will get injured and the Seahawks will lose 10 in a row...And "It will happen."I'd offer to take you up on that bet, but people with "hunches" never seem to put their money where there mouth is.

As said earlier, though, a longer season against tough teams means less rest. I agree with that point.

If you honestly felt that way, you'd be predicting doom and gloom for the Steelers and not the Seahawks. The Steelers were the ones with ridiculously long and tough road to the Super Bowl last year. The Seahawks began resting most of their starters in week 15 last year. They enjoyed a first round bye and were only tested once on their way to the Super Bowl.As for this season, they once again have an extremely favorable schedule that is the envy of almost every good team in the league. In short, the Seahawks are sitting pretty right now and you have to resort to curses and bad luck to find anything wrong with them.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

-Pre-season strength of schedule is irreelvant

I don't agree with that. But I would make the case that strength of schedule is irrelevant when you're as good as the Seahawks are.

-I don't think Hasselbeck is significantly better than several other QBs in the NFC

McNabb is the only guy in the NFC who comes close. Bulger is a notch below. Manning is still coming into his own. And Delhomme and Vick are on the outside looking in.

-They did play in a cupcake division, one which will certainly be tougher this year

Butr not tough enough to give the Seahawks any trouble...

-Didn't they play in the most remote part of the US and have one of the loudest stadia when they were horrible?

As the Packers proved last year, home field advantage isn't much good if you have a terrible team. But as I think any knowledgeble NFL fan would admit, the Seahawks are anything but a terrible team. Any they certainly use their remote location and LOUD fans to their advantage. Since 2002, the Seahawks have posted a 22-4 record at Qwest Field.

-Great might be overstating it quite a bit

Look at how well their defense performed in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. What is there not to like about their young, up-and coming defense that just added Julian Peterson to the mix? There's also a lot to be said for defense that has such a potent offense backing it up.

-Not sure how much that's worth, but I agree Holmgren's had a great career

The importance of great coaching can't be downplayed.

-Lots of depth/talent here for sure, but I don't think they're in the top five

No arguments there. But I think a case can be made that they have the best WR's of any team that fields a top 5 RB.

-This applies to every SB losing team

True.

 

[Chase Stuart]

-Pre-season strength of schedule is irreelvant

I don't agree with that. But I would make the case that strength of schedule is irrelevant when you're as good as the Seahawks are.

Ok. Do you have a link to support your theory? Here's mine.

-Not sure how much that's worth, but I agree Holmgren's had a great career

The importance of great coaching can't be downplayed.

Before last year the Seahawks were 50-49 (incl. post-season) under Mike Holmgren. Was the importance of great coaching downplayed from 1999 to 2004?

 

[Mike Herman]

Only those who are superstitious should be concerned for Josh Brown this year. The last four Super Bowl losers didn’t fare very well in kicker scoring in their follow-up year. In 2001 St. Louis was ranked first in kicker scoring, lost the Super Bowl, and then dropped to 24th in kicker scoring the next year. Oakland dropped from 4th to 22nd. Carolina dropped from 5th to 18th. Philadelphia dropped from 5th to 23rd. Similar to the Seahawks this year, the Rams, Raiders, and Eagles were all expected to have strong offenses the year after.

link

 

[Joe T]

I like this.

It is true that players on Super Bowl losers often do worse the next season. I'd say its probably happened almost every year since the Bills of the early 90's.

The question really is, is it because they have no where to go but down? Or because they had such a long season the year before are they more likely to produce less the following season?

I don't know. I'm leaning toward it is just because they had a great year and are likely to drop a little.

That said, the Bills lost 4 in a row and lost virtually no production from their top fantasy players.

Based on this, I wouldn't really downgrade super bowl loser fantasy players at all... for the Seahawks at least.

 

[JZilla]

SA's situation gives me pause (not to mention he just got a fat deal, and he's getting a little long in the tooth (in RB years))... but you just can't let him drop past #3. Can't.

 

[Mike Herman]

"Look — here's the deal. Nobody is happy. Nobody is happy just getting to the Super Bowl. We lost. And look at how we lost. We are so focused and detailed in every way to win the Super Bowl. That's the only reason we play. Our defense is going to be better with J.P. (Julian Peterson). I mean, this guy is a freak. He can play every position. And, yes, it was a loss with Steve (Hutchinson) going to Minnesota. But my man Pork Chop (Womack) looks good. I mean, how can you be bad with a name like Pork Chop? Nate Burleson is so excited to be home in Seattle. Shaun (Alexander) is back. Matt's (Hasselback) a star and the same prankster he's always been. And we were all so energized when Coach got re-signed. Mike Holmgren's my guy. He drafted me. And people better realize that the best football is played in the great Northwest!"

- Darrell Jackson (link)

 

[BRONG]

All I'm sayin' is LMMFAO @ Madden jinxes, SI curses, and the like. Give me a break.

 

[GregR_2]

Moreover, I'm not sure this would be relevant anyway, since even if Seattle had the hardest schedule in the league according to pre-season rankings, that wouldn't mean much. Pre-season SOS rankings have no correlation to end of season SOS rankings. Basically, a schedule that looks really hard ends up being no harder than a schedule that looks real easy on average.

This is something I haven't heard before. Someone do a study on it? If so, anyone have a link to it? Skimmed the last 2 years of articles and nothing jumped out at me on it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Moreover, I'm not sure this would be relevant anyway, since even if Seattle had the hardest schedule in the league according to pre-season rankings, that wouldn't mean much. Pre-season SOS rankings have no correlation to end of season SOS rankings. Basically, a schedule that looks really hard ends up being no harder than a schedule that looks real easy on average.

This is something I haven't heard before. Someone do a study on it? If so, anyone have a link to it? Skimmed the last 2 years of articles and nothing jumped out at me on it.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=17

 

[pchamp]

Has anyone downgraded the whole Seattle Offense/team? I certainly have.

I think there's something to be said about avoiding all people from a team. I avoided the Packers and Saints last year, and it worked out well. Not avoiding Eagles players, such as T.O., eventually hurt me, however.

Teams that lose the Super Bowl have ridiculously hard schedules, much tougher than the one's that helped them get there.

Look at recent years, such as with Oakland. Many had Oakland players highly rated, but they fell to pieces the year after losing the Super Bowl.

The Eagles, too, fell to utter pieces after losing the Super Bowl. Part of that has to do with McNabb and part of it has to do with Owens. But perhaps both have to do with the Madden Curse Effect.

Now, we have Shaun Alexander on the cover of Madden AND as a Super Bowl loser. Is there any reason to believe that he will somehow escape this fate? He's a consensus top-3 back. He's scored a million TDs. But he's coming off an above average TD season. Smells like a Priest Holmes type situation, where he falls off the cliff midseason this year. Or, worse.

Moreover, an offense based around SA will utterly crumble without him. The WR corps has broken Darrel Jackson, coming off injury and Nate Burleson who's another huge bust. Tight Ends are nothing special. Hasselback is a good QB, but his consistency makes him picked way higher than where he'll likely perform. The D is horrible away, though occasionally alright at Home.

Without, SA, I don't see a single bright spot on this team. And, if things go the way they might go, I think there's a chance the whole team busts. At the least I don't see most/any of the team performing to its ADP.

Am I crazy on this, or does anyone else feel similarly?

Let's think about this. You have downgraded an entire team because A) they went to the Superbowl last year and B) their star (and the NFL's reigning MVP) is on the cover of a video game. Yeah, you are crazy.

 

[SSOG]

All curses are true... until they aren't anymore.

IIRC, there used to be a Madden Video Game Challenge where people played the two superbowl teams in the week before the superbowl. Whoever won in the game wound up winning the real superbowl (including the 2001 Patriots upset). Then, in 2005, the Eagles beat the Patriots in Madden. That didn't seem to bother the Patriots very much as they handled Philadelphia in the superbowl. I also notice that it didn't affect the line any.

Maybe gamblers, people who are betting their own hard-earned money on an outcome, are smart enough to recognize that there's a difference between a meaningful causal relationship... and dumb luck.

 

[Chase Stuart]

All curses are true... until they aren't anymore.

 

[a_f13nd]

All curses are true... until they aren't anymore.

Half of it is holding up. Will the wheels fall off the Seattle bus?