We SHOULD win the NFC South

[PhillyB]

Or we could be the Cinderella team of 2014 and shock the world.

Highly doubtful though, but you never know

 

it's happened… the giants kinda sneaked in on both of their last two superbowl runs by getting hot at the right time

[igor9]

My Optimism will go way up if we have Hardy, Bene, Tolbert, D Will back to close out the season.

hell yea

[Doc Holiday]

If we can get to the playoffs some how and on the way manage to get our DB's sorted out and get Hardy back after nov 17th, I like our chances a lot better..

But still will take a playoff spot over home because as long as you are in you have a chance

[CatfanMO]

If we dont shape up the defense a lot in a hurry, It is going to be tough to win any more games. Brees and Matt Ryan will eat our defense up. Any team with a decent QB and fast WRs will beat us currently.

[rayzor]

we're gonna get smoked by some wildcard team in the playoffs though

that's what i thought about the cards a few years back. i was wrong.

of course that's what i thought about the broncos with The Golden Calf of Bristol and the chargers last year and i was right soo....i dunno.

[Growl]

3 of their last 5 games are away.

where?

[t96]

philly will bury us IMO. they should be able to execute green bay's gameplan and put us out of it early.

 

There's the problem man. Foles isn't even 1/10th the QB Rodgers is; can't read defenses, make good decisions, and does not have the accuracy or ability to change things at the line that Rodgers does. And their WRs are trash compared to Green Bay's. The only worry on their offense is LeSean McCoy obviously, but he hasn't been playing very well this year. And not to mention Philly's o-line is horrible compared to Green Bay's. We should be able to score on their D much better than against Green Bay since they have absolutely no good pass rush and although they run a 3-4 their linebackers aren't super fast and speedy, which is what has beaten our crap OTs. That's one that if we can just get on the same page and get some healthy guys back we can definitely pull through with a win. I don't see any other losses other than Seattle and the Saints in New Orleans. Browns could pose trouble but I think we'll be able to handle them, especially if Manziel is at QB by then.

[Carolina Crazy V2]

You didn't bold the Panthers. 

[PhillyB]

There's the problem man. Foles isn't even 1/10th the QB Rodgers is; can't read defenses, make good decisions, and does not have the accuracy or ability to change things at the line that Rodgers does. And their WRs are trash compared to Green Bay's. The only worry on their offense is LeSean McCoy obviously, but he hasn't been playing very well this year. And not to mention Philly's o-line is horrible compared to Green Bay's. We should be able to score on their D much better than against Green Bay since they have absolutely no good pass rush and although they run a 3-4 their linebackers aren't super fast and speedy, which is what has beaten our crap OTs. That's one that if we can just get on the same page and get some healthy guys back we can definitely pull through with a win. I don't see any other losses other than Seattle and the Saints in New Orleans. Browns could pose trouble but I think we'll be able to handle them, especially if Manziel is at QB by then.

please be right

[the_philosopher]

8.5 wins. 8-7-1 is a .531 winning percentage. Half our games would be .500, obviously.

 

In case I didn't embarrass myself sufficiently earlier in this thread, I'm going to venture one final stand. Yes, 8-7-1 would translate statistically (according to NFL rules) to a (>.500) winning percentage, but I still don't think that scenario (should it come to pass, God forbid) should count in our minds as giving us back to back winning seasons for the first time in franchise history. It translates to above .500 statistically only because the NFL counts a tie as half-of-a-win for purposes of calculating a win percentage. And that's reasonable, since the NFL must rank team records and tying is better than losing. But do you guys really want to say that we literally won half a game against the Bengals? That sounds silly to me. You can't literally win half of a football game. The only thing tyers can win are percentage points in the eyes of a league that must calculate a "win percentage" for purposes of ranking records.

 

In case you still disagree, imagine a team whose entire season ended in ties (record of 0-0-16). Surely it would be crazy to say that they literally won eight games. Nah, man; they didn't win any freaking games. To win, after all, you must outscore your opponent, which this hypothetical team never did. The fact that they would have a win percentage of .500 in the eyes of the league doesn't change that one iota.

 

So, I still say that to be a winning team (in the most relevant sense), a team needs to win more games than they do not win Thus a team that finishes  8-7-1 will have won just as many games as it did not win, and therefore, is not a winning team (in the most relevant sense.) Those who wish to appeal to statistics should notice that we could state my  interpretation of "winning vs. not winning" statistically as well. An 8-7-1 team will have won .500 of its games and not won .500 of its games in my sense (which, again, is the ordinary, literal sense of winning according to which winning=outscoring the other team.)

 

To conclude, there are two senses of "winning" at issue here. The first is the sense in which the Panthers can be said to have won half a game last week. I find that sense useful only for purposes of ranking records and think it silly to take it literally. The second is the sense in which the Panthers did not win any games last week. That strikes me as the most literal sense of "winning." Thus should, God forbid, the Panthers go 8-7-1 this year, I think it would be quite out of place for anyone to say that they (finally) had back-to-back winning seasons.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, I'm a dork.

[UNCrules2187]

In case I didn't embarrass myself sufficiently earlier in this thread, I'm going to venture one final stand. Yes, 8-7-1 would translate statistically (according to NFL rules) to a (>.500) winning percentage, but I still don't think that scenario (should it come to pass, God forbid) should count in our minds as giving us back to back winning seasons for the first time in franchise history. It translates to above .500 statistically only because the NFL counts a tie as half-of-a-win for purposes of calculating a win percentage. And that's reasonable, since the NFL must rank team records and tying is better than losing. But do you guys really want to say that we literally won half a game against the Bengals? That sounds silly to me. You can't literally win half of a football game. The only thing tyers can win are percentage points in the eyes of a league that must calculate a "win percentage" for purposes of ranking records.

 

In case you still disagree, imagine a team whose entire season ended in ties (record of 0-0-16). Surely it would be crazy to say that they literally won eight games. Nah, man; they didn't win any freaking games. To win, after all, you must outscore your opponent, which this hypothetical team never did. The fact that they would have a win percentage of .500 in the eyes of the league doesn't change that one iota.

 

So, I still say that to be a winning team (in the most relevant sense), a team needs to win more games than they do not win Thus a team that finishes  8-7-1 will have won just as many games as it did not win, and therefore, is not a winning team (in the most relevant sense.) Those who wish to appeal to statistics should notice that we could state my  interpretation of "winning vs. not winning" statistically as well. An 8-7-1 team will have won .500 of its games and not won .500 of its games in my sense (which, again, is the ordinary, literal sense of winning according to which winning=outscoring the other team.)

 

To conclude, there are two senses of "winning" at issue here. The first is the sense in which the Panthers can be said to have won half a game last week. I find that sense useful only for purposes of ranking records and think it silly to take it literally. The second is the sense in which the Panthers did not win any games last week. That strikes me as the most literal sense of "winning." Thus should, God forbid, the Panthers go 8-7-1 this year, I think it would be quite out of place for anyone to say that they (finally) had back-to-back winning seasons.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, I'm a dork.

 

You can either count the tie as a half win and half loss, or throw it out altogether. If you throw out the tie game, you still end up with 8 wins vs 7 losses and, thus, a winning season. You can't have it "winning" vs. "not winning." That's not how it works.

[the_philosopher]

You can either count the tie as a half win and half loss, or throw it out altogether. If you throw out the tie game, you still end up with 8 wins vs 7 losses and, thus, a winning season. You can't have it "winning" vs. "not winning." That's not how it works.

 

It's "not how it works" for purposes of ranking records. But it does work for the everyday, literal sense of what it means to win. If you disagree, you are committed to the view that the 0-0-16 team literally won 8 games.

[frash.exe]

There's the problem man. Foles isn't even 1/10th the QB Rodgers is; can't read defenses, make good decisions, and does not have the accuracy or ability to change things at the line that Rodgers does. And their WRs are trash compared to Green Bay's. The only worry on their offense is LeSean McCoy obviously, but he hasn't been playing very well this year. And not to mention Philly's o-line is horrible compared to Green Bay's. We should be able to score on their D much better than against Green Bay since they have absolutely no good pass rush and although they run a 3-4 their linebackers aren't super fast and speedy, which is what has beaten our crap OTs. That's one that if we can just get on the same page and get some healthy guys back we can definitely pull through with a win. I don't see any other losses other than Seattle and the Saints in New Orleans. Browns could pose trouble but I think we'll be able to handle them, especially if Manziel is at QB by then.

And even though they have all those problems, they've masked them well enough to start 5-1 this season, and play to their strengths

Wish we had a coach that could do that

[UNCrules2187]

It's "not how it works" for purposes of ranking records. But it does work for the everyday, literal sense of what it means to win. If you disagree, you are committed to the view that the 0-0-16 team literally won 8 games.

 

Whatever, if we go 8-7-1, it will count as back to back winning seasons. We will have won more games than we lost. Not won just as many games as we lost, but more than we lost. That's a winning season in my book.

 

I think we're going to go 9-6-1 anyway so the point is moot!