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!

     

BusinessInsider claimed Packers, Steelers/Jets were best teams in early december

frash.exe

By frash.exe,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
Posted

The Pats were incredibly lucky and overrated, not that i tried to tell you tho

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-patriots-are-overrated-and-the-packers-are-the-best-team-in-the-nfl-2010-12

There is an old adage in the NFL that says "You are what your record says you are." But let's face it, in a league with such a small sample size (16 games) and unbalanced schedules, some teams are just luckier than others.

Wins are wins. But do they give us an accurate picture of how good a team is and how well that team will play in the remainder of the season? Not always.

A better predictor of future performance is simply looking at how good the offense and defense has been. To do that, all we need to do is apply the Pythagorean Win Percentage formula to get an idea of how many games a team should have won based on their points favoring (PF) and points allowed (PA).

...

We also see that the best team in the NFL so far this season has been the Packers. They are the only team with an expected win total of at least eight. That tells us that the Packers have been unlucky by 1.3 wins. But not as unlucky as the Lions, who have played like a 5-6 team despite a 2-9 record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Basing it on 11 games from one year. Doesn't take into account strength of schedule. Good teams make their own luck.

sos is a good point

basing it on 11 games, i mean 11 games is all they had at the time and they basically hit the nail on the head with it.

that hardly makes it a stupid article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...