Undefeated or a winless season. 16-0 or 0-16? (1 Viewer)

[LionsFan78]

Sparked by an office discussion. I'm curious what fellow FBG'ers think about this. We've all seen how tough it is for a team to even get close to a perfect season. But what about a winless season? Which do you think will happen first? Every year a horrible team (My Lions from last year for example) knocks off a good team. It'll always happen.

What do you see happening first? And a subthought, which is harder to achieve?

 

[Chase Stuart]

0-16 is way easier and more likely to happen. It's always easier to be perform really badly than to perform really well.

 

[Jason Wood]

0-16 is way easier and more likely to happen. It's always easier to be perform really badly than to perform really well.

Mathematically, I'm not sure 0-16 is much if any easier than 16-0 based on the historical distribution curve, is it? There have been as many 14- and 15- win teams as their have been 1- and 2-win teams, no?But in reality, I think you're absolutely right Chase. Ineptitude begets more ineptitude in many ways; excellence is harder to maintain.

 

[Chase Stuart]

0-16 is way easier and more likely to happen. It's always easier to be perform really badly than to perform really well.

Mathematically, I'm not sure 0-16 is much if any easier than 16-0 based on the historical distribution curve, is it? There have been as many 14- and 15- win teams as their have been 1- and 2-win teams, no?But in reality, I think you're absolutely right Chase. Ineptitude begets more ineptitude in many ways; excellence is harder to maintain.

Four teams have gone 15-1, 17 teams have gone 14-2; seven teams have gone 1-15; 20 teams have gone 2-14.Slight edge to ineptitude.

 

[Jason Wood]

0-16 is way easier and more likely to happen. It's always easier to be perform really badly than to perform really well.

Mathematically, I'm not sure 0-16 is much if any easier than 16-0 based on the historical distribution curve, is it? There have been as many 14- and 15- win teams as their have been 1- and 2-win teams, no?But in reality, I think you're absolutely right Chase. Ineptitude begets more ineptitude in many ways; excellence is harder to maintain.

Four teams have gone 15-1, 17 teams have gone 14-2; seven teams have gone 1-15; 20 teams have gone 2-14.Slight edge to ineptitude.

 

[freeannyong]

Due to the fact that the Raiders last year were the worst team the NFL has seen in a while and still won games, neither is going to happen.

 

[CalBear]

The 2006 Raiders were one of the worst offenses the league has seen in a while; the defense was actually quite good.

To your point, the 2005 Niners were one of the worst teams the league has seen in a while (#32 in both offense and defense), and they managed 4 wins. It does seem like with parity that both 16-0 and 0-16 are getting less and less likely, but I'd give the edge to 0-16, just because the 14-0/15-0 team is likely to rest its starters.

 

[RC94]

0-16 is way easier and more likely to happen. It's always easier to be perform really badly than to perform really well.

Mathematically, I'm not sure 0-16 is much if any easier than 16-0 based on the historical distribution curve, is it? There have been as many 14- and 15- win teams as their have been 1- and 2-win teams, no?But in reality, I think you're absolutely right Chase. Ineptitude begets more ineptitude in many ways; excellence is harder to maintain.

Beyond the stats, I think the bolded part is the key. Losing can be like a disease and is contagious while winning can be derailed by something like an injury to a key player or simply having one bad day.

 

[Christo]

I think the shame of going 0-16 is much more intense than the pride in going 16-0. Given the competitive nature of the men we're talking about, I think we see 16-0 long before 0-16. Just look at Oakland last year, as truly inept as the O was, the D was just not going to be sucked along with them into the abyss.

 

[hacman]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

 

[renesauz]

I think the shame of going 0-16 is much more intense than the pride in going 16-0. Given the competitive nature of the men we're talking about, I think we see 16-0 long before 0-16. Just look at Oakland last year, as truly inept as the O was, the D was just not going to be sucked along with them into the abyss.

I tend to agree more with this sentiment. While 1-15 seems more likely then 15-1, I'd have to give the edge to the perfect season before the winless one.

 

[renesauz]

0-16 is way easier and more likely to happen. It's always easier to be perform really badly than to perform really well.

Mathematically, I'm not sure 0-16 is much if any easier than 16-0 based on the historical distribution curve, is it? There have been as many 14- and 15- win teams as their have been 1- and 2-win teams, no?But in reality, I think you're absolutely right Chase. Ineptitude begets more ineptitude in many ways; excellence is harder to maintain.

Four teams have gone 15-1, 17 teams have gone 14-2; seven teams have gone 1-15; 20 teams have gone 2-14.Slight edge to ineptitude.

Those stats are misleading. A team at 0-13 or 0-14 would be desperatley looking for another win for the sake of pride, but with 1 or 2 wins has little to gain. A team at 14-1 or 13-2 is just looking to protect it's stars most years...meaning that there COULD be more 14 and 15 win teams.

 

[aposulli]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

One or two more great drafts and they just might.

 

[BLOX]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

Not in that Division. Not being in the AFC either.

 

[TC]

Neither will occur in my lifetime. The odds are so strong against both that we'll not see it in the next 30 season.

 

[DanFouts]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I voted neither, as I believe the chance for a 14-0 team to win the last two games is minimal, seeing as most teams with that record have the conference and home field locked up and are willing to sit their major stars to keep them fresh (and injury free) for the post-season. Losses and an undefeated season be damned. On the other hand, almost all winless teams after week 14 will do everything in their power to avoid a winless season. Thus, it's a wash.

I had hoped the Eagles would run the table in '04, (in fact, I predicted it to all who would listen to my dribble,) but Andy Reid and company were comfortable with a couple late season losses (plus 1 mid-season). I think this cost them the Super Bowl title in the end. But, who am I to second guess a NFL head coach?????

 

[Pickle Rody]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

Your avatar pic of Fouts looks exactly like Will Farrell!!Do you think Farrell could portray Fouts in a movie based on his illustrious career????

 

[hacman]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

Not in that Division. Not being in the AFC either.

Denver on the road will be a challenge and KC is a hostile environment, but some factors to consider…They enjoy an edge in talent over all their opponents.Their defense is stellar; their offense and young quarterback have had a year to mature. Norv Turner has the skill to improve their offense and the temperament and motivation to succeed with a team that has built-in leadership.The heartbreaking way they lost their playoff game to New England will be the seeds of an historic season for them this year. When the 49ers went 15-1 in 1984, it was fueled out of the frustration of their loss to the Redskins in the NFC title game the season before where they felt were robbed of a championship by the officials in that game.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I have to give the nod to 0-16 definitely.

The record NFL losing streak is 26 games (the good 'ol expansion Bucs) while the record winning streak is 21 (playoffs and combined) by the Patriots/18 in the regular season.

There are a number of good reasons:

Teams will generally bring their best to play an undefeated team and try to make a statement (the Bengals were below .500 in Marvin's first year when they won Chad's guarantee game of then-undefeated Kansas City).

Injuries will have a greater impact on a great team than a bad one. Would the Colts go 16-0 if they had to play 8 of the games with Jim Sorgi at QB? Not likely. Bad teams, however, don't magically have good players drop from the sky to rescue them and the quality of players is bad enough that oftentimes even if they play an injury-plague team, that team's backups are superior to their starters (Sorgi could realistically fight for the #1 job in Oakland).

While teams often will let down against bad teams (hell, the Texans beat the Colts twice last year), the equation changes when that bad team is winless. While the winless players have professional pride, so do the guys who don't want to lose to the 0-fers.

Resting for the playoffs definitely can impact the late season games for an undefeated team, making them more likely to lose. If a team is winless, however, they might be willing to take a chance with unproven players for the future at the expense of current season wins.

-QG

 

[CalBear]

Norv Turner has the skill to improve their offense and the temperament and motivation to succeed with a team that has built-in leadership.

Norv Turner is a major, major downgrade from Marty Schottenheimer by any reasonable measure. The best record any Turner-coached team has put up is 10-6. His combined record as a head coach is 58-82-1. The only team he has ever beaten in the post-season is Detroit.It's fairly unlikely that anyone could go 16-0 in today's league, but it is freakin' impossible that Norv Turner would do it.

 

[BGP]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the league turn the last two preseason games into regular season games at some point in the near future. So 16-0 may not be an undefeated season for long.

 

[PatsFanCT]

The Chargers will go 16-0 within the next couple of years.

Possibly, but the Patriots are going 16-0 this year.