• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

the 2013/2014 nfl thread v. in a snowglobe in a dollar store

Status
Not open for further replies.
and sorry there is no way to gauge a schedules difficulty at this time, just look over the past few years how bad Monday night games end up being, it's all a crapshoot

I suppose by that logic we should just not talk about football at all then....

I realize that its difficult to gauge how good teams will be this year but its all we have at this point.
 
strength of schedule is the dumbest stat to argue for why your team will win/lose

especially in the NFL
 
If anything I think its most important in the NFL than any of the other pro sports. The short season makes every game more important and any one team will play less than half of the teams in league during the season making the variance in difficulty between schedules pretty significant. Its just hard to tell who will be good before the season starts.

Compared to a sport like baseball where there are sooooo manyyyy gamesssss that everyone play both good and bad teams pretty much equally so it kind of evens out.
 
except when you lose to a team you are directly improving your teams strength of schedule

and vice versa
 
I agree.... not sure exactly how that counters what im saying though....
 
like if you would have beaten that team instead of losing to that team, your strength of schedule would decrease and theirs would increase instead of the other way around.

it is not a useless stat, but to tout it around like the sole reason of why teams do good or bad is bullshit

and I've seen a couple people use it as a defense for their mediocre teams not doing well

any team can beat any team in the NFL, you just have to go out and do it
 
like if you would have beaten that team instead of losing to that team, your strength of schedule would decrease and theirs would increase instead of the other way around.
and rightfully so

any team can beat any team in the NFL, you just have to go out and do it

same can be said in basketball, hockey, baseball, soccer......
 
like if you would have beaten that team instead of losing to that team, your strength of schedule would decrease and theirs would increase instead of the other way around.

it is not a useless stat, but to tout it around like the sole reason of why teams do good or bad is bullshit
i don't think anybody here us suggesting that it's the only metric which applies in the nfl.

however, pre-season, when there have been no games yet, it is one metric which can inform the discussion until the carnage begins...

alasdair
 
im just saying if you look at most of the teams with a high strength of schedule they have below 500 records because of exactly what I just said

when you lose every two out of three games you are increasing your strength of schedule by making the opponents records better
 
you can only look back and reflect on s.o.s, not forecast

the only significance of preseason is who gets cut and who get's to be a special teamer

rams won 4 preseason games in 2011

that's two times more than the amount of the regular season games they won

I hate bad mock drafts, howard cossell's son(I think) did one for yahoo and had rams taking a DT and eddie lacy

last year their first pick was a DT and they signed kendall Langford for 4 years and decent cash, both played well last year

there's a reason they didn't want steven Jackson back, it's because they want to see how well isiah pead(broke all rushing records while at uCinci), daryl Richardson was better than Jackson last year and terrance gannaway was an all American during his final year at Baylor(bobby griffen helped stuff dem stats)

heard ram's GM les snead on rich eisen's podcast last week and he was talking about when he was head scout for the falcons the year they drafted Julio jones and told a story about showing people something he wrote on a napkin 'why draft a receiver when you already have one'

he said something about not being interested in cordarrle Patterson cause he's another version of brian quick

can the guy who is responsible for roddy white/Julio jones reach similar success with quick/Patterson?
quick and Patterson are the sizes of the pair of falcon's, hmmm
but i'd rather tavon Austin if available, or whatever, just some future hall of famer that I can love and grow old with

what's up with the vols sucking while having 3 WRs expected to be taken in first two rounds and a top 8 qb? obvious answer Is obvious
 
I've always felt teams should take the best player on their board that drops to them instead of drafting for needs and reaching on a player because you can always trade the guy who dropped later

especially at WR and RB, I feel like anyone who can run fast can play WR and same deal with RB, if you O Line is good enough you just need someone who is fast
 
yeah, for the most part take best player available, unless it's a QB you don't need, than you trade that pick for 5 first round picks and some conditionals

jets should just fire rex ryan, why let him have anything to do with 2 number one draft picks that he won't be coaching after their rookie seasons?
 
I seriously wouldn't mind if the Eagles took one of the top LTs or Warmack from Alabama and created one of the most potent ground attacks in the NFL

I don't think the traditional running game is dead teams just see the top teams airing it out but if you keep the other team off the field you are greatly increasing your chance to win and with the amount of pure pash rushers being thrown onto D lines now you can take advantage of douchebags like Jason Babin who only know one move and cant stop the run for shit

if you watched any Eagles game over the past two years you know the run game isnt dead they got killed time and time again because of it.
 
I would have no problem with st Louis to take offensive lineman with their first 3 picks

the only legit need is at LG, but a great Oline makes everything better and doesn't give Bradford any excuses to not be awesome
 
you can only look back and reflect on s.o.s, not forecast

I dont think thats true. Looking back on strength of schedule is obviously far more accurate, but I think its safe to say that a game against the Packers is going to be significantly more difficult than a game vs the Raiders. There will always be some teams that either underachieve or surprise, but its pretty easy to separate the toughest games from the easiest ones if you ask me.
 
I can't disagree

but every year there are a few teams that end up being sneaky good, sometimes even sneaky superbowl champs
 
I have an uneasy feeling about the upcoming Steelers' season. Even think maybe the Ravens & Steelers both might be in for a down year. But I think this comes with age and player turnover which has been on the horizon for a few seasons now. I love Tomlin as coach but he has a tough road to travel this year and next I believe. That being said, GM Kevin Colbert has always surprised me with player moves and he may yet this season as well.
 
^ want to do an avatar bet the week of nov. 3rd?

new_england_patriots.png
vs.
pittsburgh_steelers.png


alasdair
 
I think the Bengals win the AFC North and actually win a playoff game this year

as far as the draft goes I have to admit Im more pumped then usual because I want to see what kind of players Chip Kelly goes after because it always seemed like Andy Reid and Joe Bannar would try to out think everyone else and reach on guys when there was other proven players on the board ie Jaquan Jarret and I could name a lot more but I already forgot most of their names and would have to look it up oh Brandon Graham who actually had signs of life last year but still has been a bust so far by pure production compared to someone like Jason Pierre Paul who they could have taken over Graham

not to mention everyone and their mother was expecting Earl Thomas and it was just like Brandon who?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top