Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Who Said, "They Haven't Played Anyone..."


Anybodyhome

Recommended Posts

So, I actually set my DVR and recorded all the Monday "hindsight" NFL shows and zipped through them...

Tony Kornheiser: "... but who have they played? Nobody. They beat a Seattle team that was bad at 2-4 and a Green Bay team that isn't close to what it was a year ago..."

Adam Schein: "...they have a very weak schedule..."

Trent Green: "... Arizona Cardinals are the best team in the NFC..."

And the list goes on and on. The entire fallacy of the strength of schedule argument is at an all-time high when any complete NFL idiot knows the entire schedule is set years in advance and only 2 games are set based upon the previous season's standings. The notion of schedule strength, who a team plays and who they beat is a total and complete non-factor as the team has no control over who they play. This isn't college football or basketball where one can set up a few pansy-ass, easy-win games every year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a talking point for the ignorant.  It's not going to stop.  As of a week ago or so, there was a graphic that compared wins vs current playoff teams and we were at the top.  After this week we might not be at the top, but we can't be far from it after just one game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(The following were calculated prior to the result of last nights NYG/MIA game)

 

The combined strength of schedule of opponents already played for the double-digit win teams goes like this: 

New England - 48.5% 
Denver - 47.9% 
Cincinnati - 46.7% 
Carolina - 44.4% 
Arizona - 43.2% 

Number of teams with winning records played: 

Denver - 5 
Cincinnati - 5 
Arizona - 4 
New England - 3 
Carolina - 2 

Number of losses to teams with LOSING records 

Carolina - 0 
New England - 1 (to 6-7 Philadelphia, who Carolina beat 27-16) 
Cincinnati - 1 (to 6-7 Houston, who Carolina beat 24-17) 
Arizona - 1 (to 5-8 St. Louis) 
Denver - 2 (to 6-7 Indianapolis, who Carolina beat 29-26, and to 6-7 Oakland) 

 

And yet Arizona doesn't get any questions about their schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading an article on Flipboard last night, so don't recall the exact source, but I think it was from one of the major outlets like ESPN or NFL.com.  Anyway, it made mention that Carolina had gone 13-0 this season while AVOIDING any strong teams.  Made my jaw drop at the incredible stupidity of the statement.  

As others have said, this ain't college ball.  We play who they tell us to play.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hell?     Cardinals beat the Vikings........ a team with Teddy Bridgewater (guy had like 10 total TDs in 12 games) at qb and an injury depleted defense..            The Cardinals also beat that same "bad" Seahawks team...and a Bengals team that ALWAYS chokes during primetime games.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Newtcase said:

Seattle got to play Jimmy Clausen...TWICE

That's what blows my mind.     Jimmy Clausen  ,  I like the guy and wish him the best,  but he is a poor man's Curtis Painter.    Essentially the Seahawks shut down Clausen twice.............and it's all "Omg the LOB IS BACK!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Why do you say that. What leads you to think that we, as supporters, think his ceiling is 10-12. That's a ridiculous assumption on your part. The Seahawks won the SB with Darnold passing for 25 TD's, 14 Ints with a 99.1 rating for the season.  The Panthers with Young were at 23 TD's, 11 Ints and a 78.8 rating for the season. Not that far off. The problem with all the Young discourse around here is the assumption that the QB is the sole determining factor for a teams success. That just isn't true and it's certainly not how Morgan and Tilis are building the Panthers. 
    • Do we pay based on how many wins or how many games Bryce led us to wins? We've spent quite a bit on defense this year and hopefully they're much improved. If the Panthers do get to 10 wins, but Bryce has another year like last year where he showed up big in a couple, was present in a few, and forgettable in most, do we still pay him 50m per year?  I keep bringing it up because I think it's relevant, but Bryce was outplayed by a 6m per year backup last year. I don't see how it's possible to pay a top tier QB contract to someone who's putting up backup QB production. 
    • I understand tempering expectations, but there are some issues with his points. Walker was a 3 year starter, but Green Bay let him walk and no other team was quick to snatch him up. That says something. Freeling will compete to start. With Hunter, we rotate our linemen and even 5th round pick Cam Jackson played some meaningful snaps last year. Both Brown III and Wharton have underwhelmed since we picked them up. Hunter is a run plugger that we have needed. Hunter will play early, even if he isn't the "starter." Brazzell was described as one of Canales' favorite prospects in the draft and he has a speed element we have been missing. I think Canales is going to have plays drawn up with Brazzell on the field just out of pure excitement. It will be up to Brazzell to prove he can handle it, though. If he can, he will play. As far as our secondary picks, yeah they have to earn their stripes and Evero tends to lean on veterans. So they might take time, but if they can show they can play, they will see the field. Smith-Wade and Ransom did. Sam Hecht simply has to show he can handle the mental side of the NFL game. If he can, he is in a direct competition with Fortner, who's also relatively young, but also on his 3rd NFL team and doesn't have the power profile of Hecht.  I can appreciate that Gantt wants to pour cold water on what was perceived as an impactful draft, but facts are facts.
×
×
  • Create New...