Changing the Narrative, Vol. 1: #9 vs. #16

[Gucceland]

1 minute ago, Gucceland said:

If the Deadskins, Falcunts and Panthers were all tied for the last playoff spot with the same record....who gets the wildcard spot?  I honestly don't know the answer...would it be head to head or SOS?

Just googled this one....Falcunts are ahead of us in the conference...but ranked behind us in the draft....this is some ignorant poo.

[TheSpecialJuan]

nice work 

[Sasquatch]

58 minutes ago, Gucceland said:

Packers and Cardinals are not better than Seahawks and Lions.  The Falcunts won head to head twice and played two layup games against a weak Packers team and the worst team in the league Cardinals.  The Seahawks are in the playoffs and the Lions had some great wins this year.  Otherwise, the Falcunts and Panthers played the same teams...Now I'm more confused.  Crap!

Add up number of wins for each opponent. Since we play division twice, add their total wins twice. Tie counts as a half. Do the same for whichever team with the same record. Lower total picks first. 

[stratocatter]

5 hours ago, stbugs said:

We really did get unlucky.

Yeah. There are so many variables. A 63 yard FG had as much to do with it as beating the Saints.

 

And the SOS is a maze of crap really. They should use the same tiebreakers they use for standings. SOS can figure in if more sensible comparisons are exhausted.

 

[falconidae]

5 hours ago, raz said:

anyone that thinks picking at 16 is better than picking at 9 is an idiot.   i mean holy god.   how are our school systems this bad.  it doesn't matter how you try to explain it.  you're an idiot

Don't think anybody is saying that picking 16 is better than picking at 9, just that, because of the uncertainties of the draft process, the gap isn't nearly what some here seem to think. It's just too hard to judge what college players are going to do in the pros. Lots of can't-miss prospects miss badly. Bust rate is 50% throughout the 1st round.

So, tell me, if draft position is so important, why did none of the non-playoff teams tank  in the 17th week? Panthers didn't Falcons didn't, cost them both 7 or so draft slots.

Lions didn't, Giants didn't, Bucs didn't, Cards didn't, Browns didn't, Bills didn't-some of them didn't win, but they were playing hard.

Miami lost to Buffalo, but they're 2-6 last 8 games in Buffalo, GB lost Rodgers to concussion early, others were playing better teams.

If losing the game makes so much sense, why didn't any team try to lose the last game?

[Gucceland]

3 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

Add up number of wins for each opponent. Since we play division twice, add their total wins twice. Tie counts as a half. Do the same for whichever team with the same record. Lower total picks first. 

Falcons had 4 (2 against the Panthers) Division wins to the Panthers 2.  Both teams played the exact same opponents with the exception of the Packers (6 wins 1 tie) and Cardinals (3 wins) / Lions (6 wins and beat Packers twice) and the Seahawks (10 wins and beat Cardinals/Packers).  So, with that math, the Panthers clearly had the harder SOS and should be picking ahead of the Falcons.  It really makes no sense.  

I haven't looked far enough into the Redskins, but I believe that if the totals were added there, the Panthers have the harder schedule based on playing the Saints twice, Baltimore, Seahawks and Eagles.  

[Gucceland]

8 minutes ago, Gucceland said:

Falcons had 4 (2 against the Panthers) Division wins to the Panthers 2.  Both teams played the exact same opponents with the exception of the Packers (6 wins 1 tie) and Cardinals (3 wins) / Lions (6 wins and beat Packers twice) and the Seahawks (10 wins and beat Cardinals/Packers).  So, with that math, the Panthers clearly had the harder SOS and should be picking ahead of the Falcons.  It really makes no sense.  

I haven't looked far enough into the Redskins, but I believe that if the totals were added there, the Panthers have the harder schedule based on playing the Saints twice, Baltimore, Seahawks and Eagles.  

So I just reread the tiebreaker information.  The team that played opponents with the lowest winning percentage get the higher pick????  This makes absolutely no frucking sense???  Why would the team that played the easier schedule get the better draft pick, especially in a senecio where the said team beat the Panthers twice and are ahead of them in the Division!  Complete BS

 

[grimesgoat]

1 hour ago, Gucceland said:

So I just reread the tiebreaker information.  The team that played opponents with the lowest winning percentage get the higher pick????  This makes absolutely no frucking sense???  Why would the team that played the easier schedule get the better draft pick, especially in a senecio where the said team beat the Panthers twice and are ahead of them in the Division!  Complete BS

 

Think about this.  

We got 7 wins against a tough schedule. 

Atlanta got 7 wins against a weaker schedule. 

The obvious conclusion is we are better since we did the same  but against a tougher schedule. Weaker teams have priority in the draft. 

Head-to-head is not the answer. For example say you have 3 teams at 7-9 and each team went 1-1 against the other two. Who picks first among the 3?

[Sasquatch]

8 hours ago, Gucceland said:

Falcons had 4 (2 against the Panthers) Division wins to the Panthers 2.  Both teams played the exact same opponents with the exception of the Packers (6 wins 1 tie) and Cardinals (3 wins) / Lions (6 wins and beat Packers twice) and the Seahawks (10 wins and beat Cardinals/Packers).  So, with that math, the Panthers clearly had the harder SOS and should be picking ahead of the Falcons.  It really makes no sense.  

I haven't looked far enough into the Redskins, but I believe that if the totals were added there, the Panthers have the harder schedule based on playing the Saints twice, Baltimore, Seahawks and Eagles.  

You got it backwards. The Panthers did have the harder strength of schedule. (128 -122). That indicates that the Falcons were the lesser team and get the better draft pick.

YOu have to think opposite of how they determine standings/playoff seeding.

[SCMunnerlyn1]

My issue is the ability to take that 9th pick and trade it back to get to 16 and grab more stuff to fix the team. There in losing provided more options. I can see both sides though. Personally in a lost season I would want the best bang for my buck so logically the loss on paper would give me more. 

[Sasquatch]

6 minutes ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

My issue is the ability to take that 9th pick and trade it back to get to 16 and grab more stuff to fix the team. There in losing provided more options. I can see both sides though. Personally in a lost season I would want the best bang for my buck so logically the loss on paper would give me more. 

It is what it is and what it is is the 16th pick. What ifs aren't going to change that.

[ImfromClayton]

As badly as we need DE help, and as good of a draft as this is to do it, I fear that if we don't take Dexter Lawrence we will regret it.

[mc52beast]

Everyone seems to think we’re stuck at 16... teams are allowed to move up/down, yes it would’ve been nice to be sitting in the top 10 and not have to give something up to get there but we aren’t stuck at 16.

[falconidae]

1 hour ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

My issue is the ability to take that 9th pick and trade it back to get to 16 and grab more stuff to fix the team. There in losing provided more options. I can see both sides though. Personally in a lost season I would want the best bang for my buck so logically the loss on paper would give me more. 

Again, if the the earlier picks are so valuable, why didn't any of the non-playoff teams try to lose the last game?