What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who will win the Super Bowl out of these groups (1 Viewer)

Who will win the Super Bowl out of these groups of teams?

  • The 4 teams with a 1st round bye (Colts, Seahawks, Broncos, Bears)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The other 8 teams (Cincy, NE, Jax, NY Giants and the other 4 that will make it)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
I chose the group of first-round bye teams. The statistics I prefer to pay attention to suggest the Colts and Seahawks are worthy of the #1 seed in each conference. There are years where that isn't the case, but not this time. The odds are one of those four will win it all imo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Generally the teams with a 1st round bye win the title - since 1990 2 out of 15 years a team w/o a 1st round bye won the title. However, with NE as one of the teams that doesn't have a 1st round bye - I expect the poll to be closer than that this year (even though it is tough to imagine many teams besides NE winning the Super Bowl in the rest of that category - maybe Cincy but I really don't think so this season).

 
Colts win 31-20 over Seahawks
It's been since '93 that both #1 seeds made it. Won't happen this year, somebody is taking Seattle down. I'll say Colts over Bears, in a monumental rout.

 
Why not just list the playoff teams and have a poll? :confused: Anyway, voted for the 8 other because I think NE will win it again. :wall: I don't have the guts to bet against that team in the playoffs. I sadi at the start of the year that the only way I can see NE not winning it is to have them not make the playoffs like they did 3 years ago. I'll stick with that now.

 
Why not just list the playoff teams and have a poll? :confused:

Anyway, voted for the 8 other because I think NE will win it again. :wall: I don't have the guts to bet against that team in the playoffs. I sadi at the start of the year that the only way I can see NE not winning it is to have them not make the playoffs like they did 3 years ago. I'll stick with that now.
I'm sure someone will do that next week - right now we don't know all the playoff teams, though. I wanted to make this specific poll because I'm fascinated with the history of the importance of the 1st round bye. And, I can do this poll because we know who the four teams are that will get 1st round byes.
 
Colts played a pancake schedule..both tony dungy and manning can't win the big one..never have, never will..patriots are the best team in the AFC, period..they've got the best post season coach and post season QB in the history of the game..that defense of theirs has been on fire the past 3 weeks, destroying a quality TB along the way..manning beat a 3rd rate defense in NE a few weeks back..big deal..they were missing so many starters it wasn't fair..now they are all back, and SD taught everyone that a ferocious defense will beat manning and overly-conservative tony dungy , everytime..history tells us that Dungy will somehow blow it, he has one of the worst post season records as an active NFL head coach, 4-6...its ironic that the year dungy leaves, TB wins it all..Gruden coaches to win, Dungy coaches Not to lose..ala Herm Edwards, another loser in the playoffs..both are similar to Marty Shottenheimer, who chokes in big games, too..Betting on Indy this year is fools gold..they won't make the Show..a nearly undefeated season not withstanding, when it matters most, dungy loses..every time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colts played a pancake schedule..both tony dungy and manning can't win the big one..never have, never will..patriots are the best team in the AFC, period..they've got the best post season coach and post season QB in the history of the game..that defense of theirs has been on fire the past 3 weeks, destroying a quality TB along the way..

manning beat a 3rd rate defense in NE a few weeks back..big deal..they were missing so many starters it wasn't fair..now they are all back, and SD taught everyone that a ferocious defense will beat manning and overly-conservative tony dungy , everytime..history tells us that Dungy will somehow blow it, he has one of the worst post season records as an active NFL head coach, 4-6...its ironic that the year dungy leaves, TB wins it all..Gruden coaches to win, Dungy coaches Not to lose..ala Herm Edwards, another loser in the playoffs..both are similar to Marty Shottenheimer, who chokes in big games, too..

Betting on Indy this year is fools gold..they won't make the Show..

a nearly undefeated season not withstanding, when it matters most, dungy loses..every time.
Despite the syntax that makes ones' eyes bleed, this is a pretty well thought out post. SD exposed IND at exactly the wrong time, and the only way IND could work itself out of what the SD pressure did would be to play starters in live-bullets situations to work out succussful schemes - which they aren't bound to do with the lock on the playoffs and the short time frame to fix the problem.The Dungy/Manning playoff factor is something that is difficult to overlook.

 
Colts played a pancake schedule..both tony dungy and manning can't win the big one..never have, never will..patriots are the best team in the AFC, period..they've got the best post season coach and post season QB in the history of the game..that defense of theirs has been on fire the past 3 weeks, destroying a quality TB along the way..

manning beat a 3rd rate defense in NE a few weeks back..big deal..they were missing so many starters it wasn't fair..now they are all back, and SD taught everyone that a ferocious defense will beat manning and overly-conservative tony dungy , everytime..history tells us that Dungy will somehow blow it, he has one of the worst post season records as an active NFL head coach, 4-6...its ironic that the year dungy leaves, TB wins it all..Gruden coaches to win, Dungy coaches Not to lose..ala Herm Edwards, another loser in the playoffs..both are similar to Marty Shottenheimer, who chokes in big games, too..

Betting on Indy this year is fools gold..they won't make the Show..

a nearly undefeated season not withstanding, when it matters most, dungy loses..every time.
Despite the syntax that makes ones' eyes bleed, this is a pretty well thought out post. SD exposed IND at exactly the wrong time, and the only way IND could work itself out of what the SD pressure did would be to play starters in live-bullets situations to work out succussful schemes - which they aren't bound to do with the lock on the playoffs and the short time frame to fix the problem.The Dungy/Manning playoff factor is something that is difficult to overlook.
Denver was 6-2 against playoff contenders. Indy was 5-2, but that includes a meaningless loss to Seattle where they didn't play all of their starters. KC is 4-4, New England is 2-4, Pitt is 2-5. I feel like THAT is a statistic that is difficult to overlook.
 
Denver was 6-2 against playoff contenders. Indy was 5-2, but that includes a meaningless loss to Seattle where they didn't play all of their starters. KC is 4-4, New England is 2-4, Pitt is 2-5. I feel like THAT is a statistic that is difficult to overlook.
Sometimes looking and depending on only statistics can get you in trouble. Look at how some of the teams are playing heading into the playoffs. Some teams (NE, Pitt, Wash and Sea) seem to really be hitting their stride dispite what earlier faults they may have had. The fact of the matter is, it's a long NFL season and team get better and teams get worse. I would say that teams like the ones I listed are playing much better and the best football of the season right now heading into the playoffs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Denver was 6-2 against playoff contenders. Indy was 5-2, but that includes a meaningless loss to Seattle where they didn't play all of their starters. KC is 4-4, New England is 2-4, Pitt is 2-5. I feel like THAT is a statistic that is difficult to overlook.
Sometimes looking and depending on only statistics can get you in trouble. Look at how some of the teams are playing heading into the playoffs. Some teams (NE, Pitt, Wash and Sea) seem to really be hitting their stirde dispite what earlier faults they may have had. The fact of the matter is, it's a long NFL season and team get better and teams get worse.
Oh, I'm not looking at just that one statistic.Still, here's another tidbit for those who are talking about NE getting healthy at the right time...

They're on a 4-game winning streak.

Combined record of opponants during that span? 21-39.

QBs faced during that span? Brooks Bollinger, J.P. Losman, Chris Simms, Brooks Bollinger.

Total number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game (counting Brooks twice): 27

Average number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game: 6.75

Total points allowed during that span: 31

Average rank in scoring offense of their 4 opponents: 28th.

Total points scored during that span: 100

Average points allowed by those 4 teams (total): 83.7

You'll forgive me if I'm not ready to fall to my knees and worship the inevitable SB Champion Patriots based on their recent 4-game run.

 
Oh, I'm not looking at just that one statistic.

Still, here's another tidbit for those who are talking about NE getting healthy at the right time...

They're on a 4-game winning streak.

Combined record of opponants during that span? 21-39.

QBs faced during that span? Brooks Bollinger, J.P. Losman, Chris Simms, Brooks Bollinger.

Total number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game (counting Brooks twice): 27

Average number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game: 6.75

Total points allowed during that span: 31

Average rank in scoring offense of their 4 opponents: 28th.

Total points scored during that span: 100

Average points allowed by those 4 teams (total): 83.7

You'll forgive me if I'm not ready to fall to my knees and worship the inevitable SB Champion Patriots based on their recent 4-game run.
Ahh, yes I forgot how impessive the Broncos last 4 games have been. Lossing to KC, bearly beating Balt at home (a game they shold have lost) and beating the powerhouse Bills and Raiders. Oh but lets extend that further back and see how great they have been playing. They beat Dal in OT, which is nice but Dal is not a playoff team (not likely anyways). Then they again had the luxury of a tough 3 game stretch of Philly, Oak and NYJ. The game before that difficult run was a game in which they lost to the NYG. So basically since beating a dismantled and injury riddled NE team, Den has played really no good teams and beaten an entire 0 playoff teams. They have lost to 2 of the 3 teams they have faced with winning records in that time and the truth of the matter is they others they played were awful teams. Not to take anything away from Den for how impressive their 1st 6 weeks of the year were, but the past 9 have not been the same. You don't seem to be the least bit impressed by NE due to the teams they have faced in their winning streak. Ironic because the Broncos can't say they have faced anyone much tougher the past 9 weeks of the year and when they have, they have struggled and lost. At least NE has beaten TB during that run, the only playoff bound team either has beaten.
 
Colts win 31-20 over Seahawks
It's been since '93 that both #1 seeds made it. Won't happen this year, somebody is taking Seattle down. I'll say Colts over Bears, in a monumental rout.
Capella, why do you hate on the Seahawks so much? :hot: Anyway, he's right never have 2 #1's made it to the Super Bowl. So it's going to be Seattle over Denver 35-27

 
Denver was 6-2 against playoff contenders. Indy was 5-2, but that includes a meaningless loss to Seattle where they didn't play all of their starters. KC is 4-4, New England is 2-4, Pitt is 2-5. I feel like THAT is a statistic that is difficult to overlook.
Sometimes looking and depending on only statistics can get you in trouble. Look at how some of the teams are playing heading into the playoffs. Some teams (NE, Pitt, Wash and Sea) seem to really be hitting their stirde dispite what earlier faults they may have had. The fact of the matter is, it's a long NFL season and team get better and teams get worse.
Oh, I'm not looking at just that one statistic.Still, here's another tidbit for those who are talking about NE getting healthy at the right time...

They're on a 4-game winning streak.

Combined record of opponants during that span? 21-39.

QBs faced during that span? Brooks Bollinger, J.P. Losman, Chris Simms, Brooks Bollinger.

Total number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game (counting Brooks twice): 27

Average number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game: 6.75

Total points allowed during that span: 31

Average rank in scoring offense of their 4 opponents: 28th.

Total points scored during that span: 100

Average points allowed by those 4 teams (total): 83.7

You'll forgive me if I'm not ready to fall to my knees and worship the inevitable SB Champion Patriots based on their recent 4-game run.
:goodposting: I agree that the Patriots haven't faced anyone. The reason I think a lot of people are excited about their resurgence is that the secondary that got exploited by all quarterbacks, good or bad, These are the starting QBs the Patriots have faced, with a timeline of their biggest injuries on defense:

<-- Bruschi out -->

Kerry Collins 265 yards, 3 TD

Jake Delhomme 154 yards, 0 TD

Ben Roethlisberger 216 yards 2 TD

<--- Harrison on IR midway through Pittsburgh game--->

Drew Brees 248 yards 2 TD

<-- Seymour hurt, Starks nicked up -->

Matt Schaub 298 yards, 3 TD

Jake Plummer 262 yards 2 TD

<-- Bruschi returns -->

Kelly Holcomb 263 yards 1 TD

Peyton Manning 321 yards 3 TDs

<-- Seymour returns, Starks on IR midway through Indy game, Hobbs gets first start -->

Gus Frerotte 360 yards 2 TDs

Aaron Brooks 343 yards 2 TDs

<-- Hawkins gets first start -->

Trent Green 323 yards 1 TD

<-- Everyone on defense has at least one game together -->

Brooks Bollinger 135 yards 1 TD

JP Losman 181 yards, 1 TD

Chris Simms 155 yards, 0 TD

Brooks Bollinger 100 yards, 1 TD

The reason for the optimism in New England is not the success they had against Bollinger, but the fact that the team is healthy again, and they look about as good as they could look against the teams they've faced. The big thing you notice is that, when the Pats were struggling, guys liks Schaub, Holcomb, Frerotte and Brooks were blowing up against them. Now, the lesser QBs aren't. That's a more significant fact than the raw numbers they've allowed.

But the scary thing for the Patriots is that they won't have a chance to test their D against a good passing team until the playoffs. I like their chances against their likely first round opponents, with either Garrard or Roethlisberger, better than I like their chances against Manning, Plummer or Palmer. Of those, I'm most scared of Denver, because that team has always given the Patriots trouble.

But if they make it far enough, will they be able to stop Manning without Crenell, and without Harrison pounding their receivers? Or Palmer, and their young receivers?

I think it's fair to question that. I also think it's fair to say the Pats are very significantly improved from the team that was letting up an average of 300 yards and 2 TDs per game for most of the middle of the season. How much, we'll have to wait and see.

 
Oh, I'm not looking at just that one statistic.

Still, here's another tidbit for those who are talking about NE getting healthy at the right time...

They're on a 4-game winning streak.

Combined record of opponants during that span? 21-39.

QBs faced during that span? Brooks Bollinger, J.P. Losman, Chris Simms, Brooks Bollinger.

Total number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game (counting Brooks twice): 27

Average number of starts by those 4 QBs prior to NE game: 6.75

Total points allowed during that span: 31

Average rank in scoring offense of their 4 opponents: 28th.

Total points scored during that span: 100

Average points allowed by those 4 teams (total): 83.7

You'll forgive me if I'm not ready to fall to my knees and worship the inevitable SB Champion Patriots based on their recent 4-game run.
Ahh, yes I forgot how impessive the Broncos last 4 games have been. Lossing to KC, bearly beating Balt at home (a game they shold have lost) and beating the powerhouse Bills and Raiders. Oh but lets extend that further back and see how great they have been playing. They beat Dal in OT, which is nice but Dal is not a playoff team (not likely anyways). Then they again had the luxury of a tough 3 game stretch of Philly, Oak and NYJ. The game before that difficult run was a game in which they lost to the NYG. So basically since beating a dismantled and injury riddled NE team, Den has played really no good teams and beaten an entire 0 playoff teams. They have lost to 2 of the 3 teams they have faced with winning records in that time and the truth of the matter is they others they played were awful teams. Not to take anything away from Den for how impressive their 1st 6 weeks of the year were, but the past 9 have not been the same. You don't seem to be the least bit impressed by NE due to the teams they have faced in their winning streak. Ironic because the Broncos can't say they have faced anyone much tougher the past 9 weeks of the year and when they have, they have struggled and lost. At least NE has beaten TB during that run, the only playoff bound team either has beaten.
You see, I'm not the one claiming that you can judge my team based entirely on the past 4 games. You are. So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular. Like I said, no other team in the NFL has posted a better record against playoff-caliber teams (I'm including SD, KC, and Dal when I say "playoff caliber", since they were in the hunt until the very end).Also, don't sell that Philly game short. Philly was 4-2 at the time, and possessed McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, and all of their other injured stars. And Denver DISMANTLED them.

Look, there's an independent football stats site that charts the result of every single play in every single game and compares them to league average, adjusting for down, distance, situation, and opponent. This site is RUN BY A NEW ENGLAND FAN, so don't even try to tell me that it's biased. According to their ultra-scientific projections, Denver's past schedule ranks 5th in the entire NFL. New England's ranks 15th. Denver has gone 12-3 against that schedule. New England has gone 10-5. If you weight more recent games more than past games, as you suggest as a means of accounting for NE getting healthy, then Denver is the #2 team in the NFL, and New England is 12th.

Let's further compare Denver and New England's schedule. This time, we'll use nothing more complex than won-loss record of opponents.

Strength of schedule: Denver- .498. New England- .498. (Please note that every game a team wins lowers its SoS, so a .498 by a 12 win team is better than a .498 by a 10 win team)

Strength of victory: Denver- .472. New England- .393 (someone's been fattening their record on creampuffs and losing to quality teams, it seems).

Conference Points For rank + Points Against rank: Denver- 7. New England- 16.

Overall PF + PA rank: Denver- 12. New England- 26.

Overall Net Points: Denver- 121. New England- 43 (including their recent 4 game stretch).

You can't forget that New England plays 6 games against Miami, Buffalo, and the NYJ, while Denver plays against SD, KC, and Oakland... or that Denver drew the NFC East, which is the second toughest conference in the NFL.

I mean, seriously, give me ONE meaningful statistic, JUST ONE, that says that New England is more likely to win the superbowl than Denver. And past superbowls doesn't count as a meaningful statistic. Denver has scored more and allowed fewer points than New England, winning more games than New England against a tougher schedule than New England, *AND* has home field and the playoff bye, which is HUGE in terms of the divisional round.

 
I really love this years playoff teams. I hope to see NE vs Colts in the AFC title game - that will be the real SuperBowl.I think the Bears will make it on the NFC side but I'll be pulling for the Seahawks. Either way I think the AFC takes wins it all, even if its Cincy or Denver that goes.

 
Colts win 31-20 over Seahawks
It's been since '93 that both #1 seeds made it. Won't happen this year, somebody is taking Seattle down. I'll say Colts over Bears, in a monumental rout.
Capella, why do you hate on the Seahawks so much? :hot: Anyway, he's right never have 2 #1's made it to the Super Bowl. So it's going to be Seattle over Denver 35-27
I don't hate them, they've just played a laughable schedule this year. Their three toughest games were Atlanta, Dallas, NYG at home and the Giants and Boys basically gave those two away. Colts don't count because they didn't play anybody, and the rest of their schedule is just gross. Titans, Niners, Rams, Eagles, Texans...bascially the dredge of the NFL. Plus, they've gone 20 years w/o a playoff win, including a home loss to an 8-8 team last year.

Just not impressed yet.

 
I see one of the following two scenarios for the SuperBowl:Pittsburgh vs SeattleIn which case, Pittsburgh will win the Lombardi trophy.or,Indianapolis vs SeattleIn which case, Seattle will win the Lombardi trophy.

 
You see, I'm not the one claiming that you can judge my team based entirely on the past 4 games. You are. So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular. Like I said, no other team in the NFL has posted a better record against playoff-caliber teams (I'm including SD, KC, and Dal when I say "playoff caliber", since they were in the hunt until the very end).
Nobody's claiming you can judge the Patriots on four games. They're claiming you CAN'T judge the Patriots on the previous eight.
Look, there's an independent football stats site that charts the result of every single play in every single game and compares them to league average, adjusting for down, distance, situation, and opponent. This site is RUN BY A NEW ENGLAND FAN, so don't even try to tell me that it's biased. According to their ultra-scientific projections, Denver's past schedule ranks 5th in the entire NFL. New England's ranks 15th. Denver has gone 12-3 against that schedule. New England has gone 10-5. If you weight more recent games more than past games, as you suggest as a means of accounting for NE getting healthy, then Denver is the #2 team in the NFL, and New England is 12th.
The reason you weight more recent games more heavily is to show trends. The reason that doesn't work for this Patriots team is that they have had a massive re-infusion of talent since the earlier weeks in the season. It's not just a matter of changing the weightings - this is a completely different team.
Let's further compare Denver and New England's schedule. This time, we'll use nothing more complex than won-loss record of opponents.

Strength of schedule: Denver- .498. New England- .498. (Please note that every game a team wins lowers its SoS, so a .498 by a 12 win team is better than a .498 by a 10 win team)

Strength of victory: Denver- .472. New England- .393 (someone's been fattening their record on creampuffs and losing to quality teams, it seems).

Conference Points For rank + Points Against rank: Denver- 7. New England- 16.

Overall PF + PA rank: Denver- 12. New England- 26.

Overall Net Points: Denver- 121. New England- 43 (including their recent 4 game stretch).
The strength of schedule statistics are meaningless. New England started out the season against a murderer's row of teams - Oakland with a healthy Moss, Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Denver, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Indy - and played their toughest games while they had their worst injuries. The fact they came out of that stretch with a .500 record is what's hurting their strength of schedule. The fact they got healthy just in time to face the weakest part of their schedule is what creates the effect you're describing. Now, you can make the case that we don't really know how good this team is when healthy. And I agree with that - we can only look at what this year's version has done to weak teams, which at a minimum means that this defense will not have been tested going into the playoffs.

But those statistics are worthless.

You can't forget that New England plays 6 games against Miami, Buffalo, and the NYJ, while Denver plays against SD, KC, and Oakland... or that Denver drew the NFC East, which is the second toughest conference in the NFL.
Nor can you forget that New England started out the season against a murderer's row of teams - Oakland with a healthy Moss, Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Denver, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Indy - and played their toughest games while they had their worst injuries. The fact they came out of that stretch with a .500 record is what's hurting their strength of schedule.
I mean, seriously, give me ONE meaningful statistic, JUST ONE, that says that New England is more likely to win the superbowl than Denver. And past superbowls doesn't count as a meaningful statistic. Denver has scored more and allowed fewer points than New England, winning more games than New England against a tougher schedule than New England, *AND* has home field and the playoff bye, which is HUGE in terms of the divisional round.
We get it. The Broncos have had a statistically better complete season than the Patriots. If there were regular season awards, the Colts would be ahead of both the Broncos and Patriots. This is about which team is better right now, and both the Broncos and Colts have had their playoff struggles in the past. Until then, though, enjoy those regular season numbers. But let's look at this last bit, which shows that somewhere, deep down, you realize that your argument is false:

Also, don't sell that Philly game short. Philly was 4-2 at the time, and possessed McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, and all of their other injured stars. And Denver DISMANTLED them.
Um, don't you have to look at Philly's WHOLE SEASON when you talk about them?
 
Wouldn't it have been easier to just make the poll "Will NE win the Superbowl?" because that's basically what you're asking.
You're probably right - that's pretty much is what this poll has become.
 
You see, I'm not the one claiming that you can judge my team based entirely on the past 4 games. You are. So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular. Like I said, no other team in the NFL has posted a better record against playoff-caliber teams (I'm including SD, KC, and Dal when I say "playoff caliber", since they were in the hunt until the very end).
Nobody's claiming you can judge the Patriots on four games. They're claiming you CAN'T judge the Patriots on the previous eight.
Look, there's an independent football stats site that charts the result of every single play in every single game and compares them to league average, adjusting for down, distance, situation, and opponent. This site is RUN BY A NEW ENGLAND FAN, so don't even try to tell me that it's biased. According to their ultra-scientific projections, Denver's past schedule ranks 5th in the entire NFL. New England's ranks 15th. Denver has gone 12-3 against that schedule. New England has gone 10-5. If you weight more recent games more than past games, as you suggest as a means of accounting for NE getting healthy, then Denver is the #2 team in the NFL, and New England is 12th.
The reason you weight more recent games more heavily is to show trends. The reason that doesn't work for this Patriots team is that they have had a massive re-infusion of talent since the earlier weeks in the season. It's not just a matter of changing the weightings - this is a completely different team.
Let's further compare Denver and New England's schedule. This time, we'll use nothing more complex than won-loss record of opponents.

Strength of schedule: Denver- .498. New England- .498. (Please note that every game a team wins lowers its SoS, so a .498 by a 12 win team is better than a .498 by a 10 win team)

Strength of victory: Denver- .472. New England- .393 (someone's been fattening their record on creampuffs and losing to quality teams, it seems).

Conference Points For rank + Points Against rank: Denver- 7. New England- 16.

Overall PF + PA rank: Denver- 12. New England- 26.

Overall Net Points: Denver- 121. New England- 43 (including their recent 4 game stretch).
The strength of schedule statistics are meaningless. New England started out the season against a murderer's row of teams - Oakland with a healthy Moss, Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Denver, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Indy - and played their toughest games while they had their worst injuries. The fact they came out of that stretch with a .500 record is what's hurting their strength of schedule. The fact they got healthy just in time to face the weakest part of their schedule is what creates the effect you're describing. Now, you can make the case that we don't really know how good this team is when healthy. And I agree with that - we can only look at what this year's version has done to weak teams, which at a minimum means that this defense will not have been tested going into the playoffs.

But those statistics are worthless.

You can't forget that New England plays 6 games against Miami, Buffalo, and the NYJ, while Denver plays against SD, KC, and Oakland... or that Denver drew the NFC East, which is the second toughest conference in the NFL.
Nor can you forget that New England started out the season against a murderer's row of teams - Oakland with a healthy Moss, Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Denver, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Indy - and played their toughest games while they had their worst injuries. The fact they came out of that stretch with a .500 record is what's hurting their strength of schedule.
I mean, seriously, give me ONE meaningful statistic, JUST ONE, that says that New England is more likely to win the superbowl than Denver. And past superbowls doesn't count as a meaningful statistic. Denver has scored more and allowed fewer points than New England, winning more games than New England against a tougher schedule than New England, *AND* has home field and the playoff bye, which is HUGE in terms of the divisional round.
We get it. The Broncos have had a statistically better complete season than the Patriots. If there were regular season awards, the Colts would be ahead of both the Broncos and Patriots. This is about which team is better right now, and both the Broncos and Colts have had their playoff struggles in the past. Until then, though, enjoy those regular season numbers. But let's look at this last bit, which shows that somewhere, deep down, you realize that your argument is false:

Also, don't sell that Philly game short. Philly was 4-2 at the time, and possessed McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, and all of their other injured stars. And Denver DISMANTLED them.
Um, don't you have to look at Philly's WHOLE SEASON when you talk about them?
:goodposting: I love it when I get too busy at work to respond but someone else reads my mind. Last I checked, there was no prize for being the rgular season champ. As a matter of fact there is a poll out there that asks a question similar to that effect. From my numbers the best regular season team only wins the SB about 40% of the time in the last 25 years. What more do we have to say to get the point across that we know Den had a great regular seasons and that NE's was less than ideal. The point is that teams go through phases during the long NFL season and some teams like NE are now playing their best football of the year and getting healthy. This makes them sdcary opponents regarless of how dominating you think your teams regular season was.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the Patriots may indeed be the favorite after the Colts, and I wouldn't bet against them in Denver, even with their historical problems with the Broncos and Shanahan.

You can't explain away every loss to injuries (which some Patriots fans try to do), but you also can't completely ignore their effects. This team is rolling the teams they should be beating, which is more than what any of the other AFC contenders besides Pittsburgh can say right now.

When you add to that a QB who I feel is the best in the league (and, Alexander's superlative numbers notwitstanding, the MVP) and a coach who outsmarts almost everyone he faces (outside of Shanahan, has anyone else really given Belichick repeated problems?) and I think you have a 4-seed every bit as scary as the 1997 Broncos and 2000 Ravens.

I still voted for the 4 home divisional teams because it's a safer bet with a lot of history on its side. Keep in mind that unlike the previous 3 title runs, it is now the opponent with the extra rest and gameplan time, not Bill Belichick.

 
Colts win 31-20 over Seahawks
It's been since '93 that both #1 seeds made it. Won't happen this year, somebody is taking Seattle down. I'll say Colts over Bears, in a monumental rout.
Capella, why do you hate on the Seahawks so much? :hot: Anyway, he's right never have 2 #1's made it to the Super Bowl. So it's going to be Seattle over Denver 35-27
I don't hate them, they've just played a laughable schedule this year. Their three toughest games were Atlanta, Dallas, NYG at home and the Giants and Boys basically gave those two away. Colts don't count because they didn't play anybody, and the rest of their schedule is just gross. Titans, Niners, Rams, Eagles, Texans...bascially the dredge of the NFL. Plus, they've gone 20 years w/o a playoff win, including a home loss to an 8-8 team last year.

Just not impressed yet.
I only buy into your arguement about their playoff drought and last years game. Everything else... :rolleyes:
 
You see, I'm not the one claiming that you can judge my team based entirely on the past 4 games. You are. So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular. Like I said, no other team in the NFL has posted a better record against playoff-caliber teams (I'm including SD, KC, and Dal when I say "playoff caliber", since they were in the hunt until the very end).
Nobody's claiming you can judge the Patriots on four games. They're claiming you CAN'T judge the Patriots on the previous eight.
Look, there's an independent football stats site that charts the result of every single play in every single game and compares them to league average, adjusting for down, distance, situation, and opponent. This site is RUN BY A NEW ENGLAND FAN, so don't even try to tell me that it's biased. According to their ultra-scientific projections, Denver's past schedule ranks 5th in the entire NFL. New England's ranks 15th. Denver has gone 12-3 against that schedule. New England has gone 10-5. If you weight more recent games more than past games, as you suggest as a means of accounting for NE getting healthy, then Denver is the #2 team in the NFL, and New England is 12th.
The reason you weight more recent games more heavily is to show trends. The reason that doesn't work for this Patriots team is that they have had a massive re-infusion of talent since the earlier weeks in the season. It's not just a matter of changing the weightings - this is a completely different team.
Let's further compare Denver and New England's schedule. This time, we'll use nothing more complex than won-loss record of opponents.

Strength of schedule: Denver- .498. New England- .498. (Please note that every game a team wins lowers its SoS, so a .498 by a 12 win team is better than a .498 by a 10 win team)

Strength of victory: Denver- .472. New England- .393 (someone's been fattening their record on creampuffs and losing to quality teams, it seems).

Conference Points For rank + Points Against rank: Denver- 7. New England- 16.

Overall PF + PA rank: Denver- 12. New England- 26.

Overall Net Points: Denver- 121. New England- 43 (including their recent 4 game stretch).
The strength of schedule statistics are meaningless. New England started out the season against a murderer's row of teams - Oakland with a healthy Moss, Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Denver, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Indy - and played their toughest games while they had their worst injuries. The fact they came out of that stretch with a .500 record is what's hurting their strength of schedule. The fact they got healthy just in time to face the weakest part of their schedule is what creates the effect you're describing. Now, you can make the case that we don't really know how good this team is when healthy. And I agree with that - we can only look at what this year's version has done to weak teams, which at a minimum means that this defense will not have been tested going into the playoffs.

But those statistics are worthless.

You can't forget that New England plays 6 games against Miami, Buffalo, and the NYJ, while Denver plays against SD, KC, and Oakland... or that Denver drew the NFC East, which is the second toughest conference in the NFL.
Nor can you forget that New England started out the season against a murderer's row of teams - Oakland with a healthy Moss, Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Denver, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Indy - and played their toughest games while they had their worst injuries. The fact they came out of that stretch with a .500 record is what's hurting their strength of schedule.
I mean, seriously, give me ONE meaningful statistic, JUST ONE, that says that New England is more likely to win the superbowl than Denver. And past superbowls doesn't count as a meaningful statistic. Denver has scored more and allowed fewer points than New England, winning more games than New England against a tougher schedule than New England, *AND* has home field and the playoff bye, which is HUGE in terms of the divisional round.
We get it. The Broncos have had a statistically better complete season than the Patriots. If there were regular season awards, the Colts would be ahead of both the Broncos and Patriots. This is about which team is better right now, and both the Broncos and Colts have had their playoff struggles in the past. Until then, though, enjoy those regular season numbers. But let's look at this last bit, which shows that somewhere, deep down, you realize that your argument is false:

Also, don't sell that Philly game short. Philly was 4-2 at the time, and possessed McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, and all of their other injured stars. And Denver DISMANTLED them.
Um, don't you have to look at Philly's WHOLE SEASON when you talk about them?
Fine. You say that New England whupped up on bad teams because they're drastically better, and I say that New England only looks drastically better because they've been playing bad teams. This arguement will not be settled in the regular season, so how about we put it to the test in the post-season? Since my sig is no longer necessary, I will offer a sig-bet to anyone brave enough to take it. New England *WILL NOT* win a divisional playoff game. Any takers?Put your money (or your sig) where your mouth is.

 
Colts win 31-20 over Seahawks
It's been since '93 that both #1 seeds made it. Won't happen this year, somebody is taking Seattle down. I'll say Colts over Bears, in a monumental rout.
Capella, why do you hate on the Seahawks so much? :hot: Anyway, he's right never have 2 #1's made it to the Super Bowl. So it's going to be Seattle over Denver 35-27
I don't hate them, they've just played a laughable schedule this year. Their three toughest games were Atlanta, Dallas, NYG at home and the Giants and Boys basically gave those two away. Colts don't count because they didn't play anybody, and the rest of their schedule is just gross. Titans, Niners, Rams, Eagles, Texans...bascially the dredge of the NFL. Plus, they've gone 20 years w/o a playoff win, including a home loss to an 8-8 team last year.

Just not impressed yet.
I only buy into your arguement about their playoff drought and last years game. Everything else... :rolleyes:
You trying to tell me they haven't played a pathetic schedule?It's not their fault, they're just playing the games they have. But I'm not convinced they're that good of a team yet.

Chicago absolutely drilling Carolina and Atlanta at home, and beating TB on the road is faaaar more impressive to me than anything Seattle has done this year.

 
The 4 teams with a 1st round bye (Colts, Seahawks, Broncos, Bears) [ 55 ] [67.07%] The other 8 teams (Cincy, NE, Jax, NY Giants and the other 4 that will make it) [ 25 ] [30.49%] Total Votes: 80 How could 25 people actually vote for that. Consider that in the 2nd round, there will be 4 members lefts in each of these groups. And in every matchup, the top group will have home field advantage and has played better so far this season(thus earning the bye). So why would the bottom group be favored??? :confused:

 
who wins the superbowl every yearwhat was that team's namemust've slipped my mindthey're from the northlike in the new england region of the countryalso if eli stops throwing the ball i think tiki can drag the rest of the giants to the superbowl (along with the D-Line they're good too rest is pretty mediocre) NFC IS WEAK

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colts win 31-20 over Seahawks
It's been since '93 that both #1 seeds made it. Won't happen this year, somebody is taking Seattle down. I'll say Colts over Bears, in a monumental rout.
Capella, why do you hate on the Seahawks so much? :hot: Anyway, he's right never have 2 #1's made it to the Super Bowl. So it's going to be Seattle over Denver 35-27
I don't hate them, they've just played a laughable schedule this year. Their three toughest games were Atlanta, Dallas, NYG at home and the Giants and Boys basically gave those two away. Colts don't count because they didn't play anybody, and the rest of their schedule is just gross. Titans, Niners, Rams, Eagles, Texans...bascially the dredge of the NFL. Plus, they've gone 20 years w/o a playoff win, including a home loss to an 8-8 team last year.

Just not impressed yet.
I only buy into your arguement about their playoff drought and last years game. Everything else... :rolleyes:
You trying to tell me they haven't played a pathetic schedule?It's not their fault, they're just playing the games they have. But I'm not convinced they're that good of a team yet.

Chicago absolutely drilling Carolina and Atlanta at home, and beating TB on the road is faaaar more impressive to me than anything Seattle has done this year.
Last I checked they played against other pro players. They beat Dallas straight up, Bledsoe threw the same exact pass at the same exact time in the Denver game and lost it for them. The Giants game was a sham, and should of been 24-7.Here is a good read if your interested.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...hael&id=2272103

 
For those that like strength of schedule, I'd like to point out 1999. That year, the Rams had a very easy schedule en route to clinching HFA. All the prognosticators used that fact against the Rams, too. Because of the soft schedule, many predicted the Rams to lose in the first round to the Vikings, then in the NFC title game to the Buccaneers, and then finally lots of people took the Titans to beat them in the super bowl.

It didn't happen. The Rams didnt lose. They won the super bowl.

The lesson learned was a lesson in logic. A soft schedule does not help prove how good a team is, but because you are forced to only play your schedule, it doesn't help prove how weak a team is, either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 4 teams with a 1st round bye (Colts, Seahawks, Broncos, Bears) [ 55 ] [67.07%]

The other 8 teams (Cincy, NE, Jax, NY Giants and the other 4 that will make it) [ 25 ] [30.49%]

Total Votes: 80

How could 25 people actually vote for that. Consider that in the 2nd round, there will be 4 members lefts in each of these groups. And in every matchup, the top group will have home field advantage and has played better so far this season(thus earning the bye). So why would the bottom group be favored??? :confused:
This has become a NE vs. the field question in reality (unless people really think Cincy or some other team should be the favorite for the Super Bowl). Mungo Burrows is right - I might have well have asked if NE is going to win the Super Bowl or not and we'd probably see similar results (maybe it would have been 58 to 22 instead of 55 to 25).
 
Since my sig is no longer necessary, I will offer a sig-bet to anyone brave enough to take it. New England *WILL NOT* win a divisional playoff game. Any takers?

Put your money (or your sig) where your mouth is.
Come on, anyone?
For those that like strength of schedule, I'd like to point out 1999. That year, the Rams had a very easy schedule en route to clinching HFA. All the prognosticators used that fact against the Rams, too. Because of the soft schedule, many predicted the Rams to lose in the first round to the Vikings, then in the NFC title game to the Buccaneers, and then finally lots of people took the Titans to beat them in the super bowl.

It didn't happen. The Rams didnt lose. They won the super bowl.

The lesson learned was a lesson in logic. A soft schedule does not help prove how good a team is, but because you are forced to only play your schedule, it doesn't help prove how weak a team is, either.
Of course, there's a HUGE difference here. The Rams had a much better record *AND* home-field advantage. I could also point out that the Rams only lost to ONE playoff-caliber team all season, while the Pats lost to four, but I'm sure I'd just get the "they're getting healthy" arguement again, so I won't waste my time.However, while strength of schedule isn't necessarily an indictment of your team, a large disparity between strength of schedule and strength of victory (such as New England has) most certainly is. It means you're beating up on the bad teams and losing to the good teams, which is incredibly meaningful considering in the playoffs, all teams are good teams.

 
So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I feel the need to point out that the folks who are hyping New England are probably doing so based on the most recent four games, combined with about a 50-game body of evidence.If it were only about four games, people would be more excited about the Redskins.

 
So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I feel the need to point out that the folks who are hyping New England are probably doing so based on the most recent four games, combined with about a 50-game body of evidence.If it were only about four games, people would be more excited about the Redskins.
I think it's stupid taking previous seasons into account. Heck, if you take last season into account, Philly has a winning record, Green Bay isn't that bad, and Chicago doesn't even make the playoffs. Teams change from season to season. What is it, 5 straight years now that the SB loser didn't even make the postseason the following year?
 
So I don't care if our last 4 games were less than stellar, because I know that our FIFTEEN GAME body of evidence is spectacular.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I feel the need to point out that the folks who are hyping New England are probably doing so based on the most recent four games, combined with about a 50-game body of evidence.If it were only about four games, people would be more excited about the Redskins.
I think it's stupid taking previous seasons into account. Heck, if you take last season into account, Philly has a winning record, Green Bay isn't that bad, and Chicago doesn't even make the playoffs. Teams change from season to season. What is it, 5 straight years now that the SB loser didn't even make the postseason the following year?
You do understand that it's possible to exercise some common sense, and not summarily declare all past seasons to be either meaningless or meaningful? In some cases, it might be meaningful. In others, not. And various shades of gray.
 
You do understand that it's possible to exercise some common sense, and not summarily declare all past seasons to be either meaningless or meaningful? In some cases, it might be meaningful. In others, not. And various shades of gray.
I don't know. I still believe that past seasons have very little bearing on current seasons. I suppose you could say "look at this personnel grouping and see what they've done", but even then, wouldn't THIS season be a better example of what this current personnel grouping has done?
 
Since my sig is no longer necessary, I will offer a sig-bet to anyone brave enough to take it. New England *WILL NOT* win a divisional playoff game. Any takers?

Put your money (or your sig) where your mouth is.
Come on, anyone?
[ben Stein]Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

[/ben Stein]

 
The 4 teams with a 1st round bye (Colts, Seahawks, Broncos, Bears) [ 55 ] [67.07%]

The other 8 teams (Cincy, NE, Jax, NY Giants and the other 4 that will make it) [ 25 ] [30.49%]

Total Votes: 80

How could 25 people actually vote for that. Consider that in the 2nd round, there will be 4 members lefts in each of these groups. And in every matchup, the top group will have home field advantage and has played better so far this season(thus earning the bye). So why would the bottom group be favored??? :confused:
This has become a NE vs. the field question in reality (unless people really think Cincy or some other team should be the favorite for the Super Bowl). Mungo Burrows is right - I might have well have asked if NE is going to win the Super Bowl or not and we'd probably see similar results (maybe it would have been 58 to 22 instead of 55 to 25).
I have unlimited respect for Belichick. If he can win the super bowl with this club, it will be his greatest accomplishment. All of his super bowl winners were, statistically, vastly superior to the 2005 edition of his Patriots. I absolutely do not put it beyond him to accomplish it, but if I had choose between these top 4 seeds and the Patriots, I will pick the top 4 seeds. I am not comfortable picking against him at ALL. My biggest criticism of the 05 Patriots is that they haven't proven they can play at a high level consistently. Another convincing win this weekend, resulting in what would be a very strong run to end the regular season, makes me nervous about my pick in this thread.

 
Well - I voted on an ESPN.com poll about the playoffs, and I see these results on the Super Bowl question:

9) Which team will win Super Bowl XL? 27.6% Seahawks 16.0% Colts 11.4% Bears 10.4% Patriots 8.2% Steelers 6.2% Redskins 5.3% Broncos 3.7% Cowboys 3.6% Giants 3.2% Bengals 1.8% Buccaneers 1.1% Panthers 0.8% Jaguars 0.7% Chiefs Total Votes: 14,978
Edit: when asked this way - the 4 teams that earned the 1st round bye got 60% of the votes - and the Pats only got 10% of the vote. So, 30% of the vote went to the other contenders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top