Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Something we all know

49 posts in this topic

Posted

No we are our record. We legitimately lost all those games. The only one I felt even a little robbed was against the Cowboys when we converted the 4th down and they gave the Cowboys a timeout. Then on the following play there was contact on Louis Murphy but no flag. Still we played and coached terrible for most of the season. You can't watch a blow out against an even worse team in week 15 and decide we were good all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Honestly that doesn't mean anything. Those rankings are subjective and show nothing.

But the only statistic that matters is win-loss record. You can lead the league in scoring points but if you give up more than you score you end up with a poor record. You can have more yards than another team but if you have fewer points then it doesn matter.

So win- loss record at the end of the day is all that matters.

Did you not see the Objective vs Subjective rankings?

The Colts have the highest differential, they're overrated.

We have the most negative differential, we're being slept on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually we are not better than our record indicates. John Madden frequently says that you are what your record says you are. Now if you want to say that we have the potential to be better than our record, then that might be the case. Our offense has yet to show that they can come back and win a close game. Our defense has yet to show that we can create turnovers and shut down other teams in the 4th quarter like we did in the past. We are fine if we get a big lead but how are playing from behind???

The reasons above are why we are 5-9. Until we can show that we can finish games, we are a 5-9 team trying to improve to 7-9 which is still a losing record.

As you refuse the consider the arguments people put here let me give it to you in a simple way:

Denver is 11-3, now Manning and Von Miller get hurt in practice and placed on IR. With your, and Maddens, logic they are still just as good as they are still a 11-3 team.

The world is never black and white, regardless of what John Madden says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A teams record indicates how good a season a team has had, not how good that team is. There is a plethora of things that might cause a good team to lose to a lesser team.

If you only care about wins as a measure then you need to think about multiple season records to prevent the anomalies from having a major impact. Case example - who is the better team, the Detroit lions or the panthers? One was playoff bound last year but that season was essentially an anomaly compared to the surrounding years, the other had a worse record last year but currently has a better record this year.

Looking at Detroit, were they really one of the teams in the nfl last year? Or did they benefit from reasons outside of the teams ability? This season suggests last year was a fluke. Considering that bow can you reliably use a single seasons record as the measuring stick on how good a team actually is???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thread re-title: "How to convince yourself the Panthers are a playoff-caliber team at 5-9."

Here's my idea that will revolutionize the NFL: Tear down all the scoreboards across the country and after every game we'll let the fans cast their ballot for whichever team they think played better as they leave the stadium... not based on score, mind you, because we'll stop keeping score.

Apparently the score only determining the outcome of the game and therefore deciding who the better team was during a 4-hour stretch is no longer a valid indication of a good team. Please..... the Panthers are a below average team (which their record indicates) and they have been for the last 4 seasons... deal with it.

This post filled with complete and utter sarcasm only because it's too early in the morning to start digging my eyeballs out with a wooden spoon after reading some of this tripe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

First of all you want their starters not castoffs. Secondly Philly has demonstrated that some great individual players don't guarantee that you will play well as a team or win. But if Rivera is still here, how well he can mold the players in a cohesive unit that has good chemistry and plays well together will determine how long he stays here. If isn't who has the best individual players but who plays best as a team. A great team is when the overall success of the team is better than would be predicted based on the sum of the individual parts.

Well said! We have a franchise qb so lets feed the fire is the only thing I would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

teams that can win find a way to do it.

this team cant do it until the end of the season when all they are playing for is "pride" and a rallying for the coach.

this is a talented losing team. that's this teams identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As you refuse the consider the arguments people put here let me give it to you in a simple way:

Denver is 11-3, now Manning and Von Miller get hurt in practice and placed on IR. With your, and Maddens, logic they are still just as good as they are still a 11-3 team.

The world is never black and white, regardless of what John Madden says.

I consider other arguments but most of the time people are arguing different issues. For example your example is that if a few stars get hurt then the team is not as good as they were when they went 11-3. If that is the case then they will lose their next 2 games and not make the playoffs, So they finish 11-5. Their record reflected that they were very good through most of the season and not very good at the end. The wins and losses and when they got them did reflect the strength of the team through the year.

If a team makes it into the playoffs at 10-6 and then wins the Superbowl they end up either 13-6 or 14-6 depending on whether they were a wildcard or not. Their record reflects they were decent through the year and peaked at the end which is what you want. Because they won in the playoffs they were a better team than the 11-5 team who caved at the end. So if you look at the overall record of wins and losses and how far they went based on wins and losses irregardless of the stats you get a clear idea of how good they were. If they won just one playoff game and then lost the next, they would end up 11-7. If you argue that the 11-5 team is better than the 11-7 who won a playoff game simple because of overall record then who is being black and white. I said wins and losses tell the tale. I didn't say that overall number was the only factor simply that if you are what your record reflects which includes overall record, how you started and finished, whether you made the playoff or not, etc. That is still part of the record and the wins and losses.

What you and others seem to get hung up on is whether a team with a good record will beat a team with a worse record on any given Sunday and the answer is usually but not always. Plus saying that a 1-14 should lose to a 3-12 team on the last game of the year just because of the record ignores that they both suck. A difference of 1 or 2 games doesn't really matter but a difference of 6 or 7 usually does. Will that predict who wins? Of course not, but you are again comparing apples to oranges.

When you look at how the Panthers did in 1996 what do you look at??? Individual stats or their overall record and the fact they went to the Championship Game and lost to Green Bay. That is wins and losses and record.

Nitpick all you want, I don't care but the saying that stats are for losers came about for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

teams that can win find a way to do it.

this team cant do it until the end of the season when all they are playing for is "pride" and a rallying for the coach.

this is a talented losing team. that's this teams identity.

And that is the point. You can say that we should have won more based on talent but the fact we didn't, which is reflected in our record. We underachieved which makes us a losing team. If someone wants to say we sucked early but found our groove late then that is reflected in our overall record as well as an accounting of when we won or lost.

Until we can win early and often and make the playoffs we are not a good team.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The reason the saying "stats are for losers" came about is because some people are too dumb or shortsighted to understand or appreciate stats.

"Stats are for losers" is what people were telling Nate Silver before his stats picked every single state right.

Nobody here is arguing that they would rather be really high in advanced stats than to have a bunch of wins, wins are ultimately the most important thing.

But the fact is that often stats are better than past wins at predicting future wins, and occasionally are are better at predicting which team is better (not who had the better season). Stats and wins generally correlate pretty strongly though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

sounds like a whole lot of spinning and justifying to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sounds like you don't have an answer fo the argument so you resort to cliche and one liners to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites