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

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...