Rankings don't mean anything...
Always based on the previous year and we have seen time and time again how teams play so much better or worse than expected. The rams were 28th going into 99? I wonder how that ranking would have changed when trent green went down. Dead last? What was the pats ranking going into 2001? Had you told those experts that bledsoe would not play much and some kid named brady would be starting 14 games they would have been at the bottom.
In the afc all the top teams have had problems and or questions. Palmer's knee, rothlisberger's face, colts lose edge, pats keep losing players and getting older. Chargers lose brees. Jimmy smith retires.
We went from 12-4, a super bowl contender with an mvp QB to a losing team over night so why can't we reverse that just as fast?
Always based on the previous year and we have seen time and time again how teams play so much better or worse than expected. The rams were 28th going into 99? I wonder how that ranking would have changed when trent green went down. Dead last? What was the pats ranking going into 2001? Had you told those experts that bledsoe would not play much and some kid named brady would be starting 14 games they would have been at the bottom.
In the afc all the top teams have had problems and or questions. Palmer's knee, rothlisberger's face, colts lose edge, pats keep losing players and getting older. Chargers lose brees. Jimmy smith retires.
We went from 12-4, a super bowl contender with an mvp QB to a losing team over night so why can't we reverse that just as fast?
Gunny....
How many examples do you need?
99 rams...from 4-12 to 13-3 ---Super bowl winners
99 colts from 3-13 to 13-3
2000 giants from 7-9 to 12-4--- Super bowl
2001 pats from 5-11 to 11-5---Super bowl champs
2003 panthers 11-5 from 7-9---Super bowl
2005 bears 11-5 from 5-11
2004 steelers 15-1 from 6-10
2004 chargers 12-4 from 4-12
2004 falcons 11-5 from 5-11
2000 eagles 11-5 from 5-11
2005 tampa bay 11-5 from 5-11
2001 bears 13-3 from 5-11
Then you have 8-8 teams that made the super bowl the next year in tennesse in 99 and baltimore in 2000.
In 8 of the 10 examples above a team more than doubled their win total from before.
In the 10 examples given the average increase in wins was 7.3 games.
Gunny, no need to amend your last comment i just did it for you.
)
How many examples do you need?
99 rams...from 4-12 to 13-3 ---Super bowl winners
99 colts from 3-13 to 13-3
2000 giants from 7-9 to 12-4--- Super bowl
2001 pats from 5-11 to 11-5---Super bowl champs
2003 panthers 11-5 from 7-9---Super bowl
2005 bears 11-5 from 5-11
2004 steelers 15-1 from 6-10
2004 chargers 12-4 from 4-12
2004 falcons 11-5 from 5-11
2000 eagles 11-5 from 5-11
2005 tampa bay 11-5 from 5-11
2001 bears 13-3 from 5-11
Then you have 8-8 teams that made the super bowl the next year in tennesse in 99 and baltimore in 2000.
In 8 of the 10 examples above a team more than doubled their win total from before.
In the 10 examples given the average increase in wins was 7.3 games.
Gunny, no need to amend your last comment i just did it for you.
)RollTide said:How many examples do you need?
99 rams...from 4-12 to 13-3 ---Super bowl winners
99 colts from 3-13 to 13-3
2000 giants from 7-9 to 12-4--- Super bowl
2001 pats from 5-11 to 11-5---Super bowl champs
2003 panthers 11-5 from 7-9---Super bowl
2005 bears 11-5 from 5-11
2004 steelers 15-1 from 6-10
2004 chargers 12-4 from 4-12
2004 falcons 11-5 from 5-11
2000 eagles 11-5 from 5-11
2005 tampa bay 11-5 from 5-11
2001 bears 13-3 from 5-11
Then you have 8-8 teams that made the super bowl the next year in tennesse in 99 and baltimore in 2000.
In 8 of the 10 examples above a team more than doubled their win total from before.
In the 10 examples given the average increase in wins was 7.3 games.
Gunny, no need to amend your last comment i just did it for you.
without even looking at records I know every Superbowl loser has not made the playoffs the next season since Tennessee in 1999.
That's already five cases and I havent even looked.
Gunny...
Simple arithmetic tells us that there can't be more bad teams then good ones. In all the games played in a year half of those games will have a winner and half a loser. The difference between a 5-11 team or a 5-11 team can simply be a better attitude, confidence and a couple of key players, better luck with injury etc..
Look at tampa bay this year. There was little statistical difference between the team that went 5-11 in 04 and the team that went 11-5 in 2005. They only improved one spot on defense(from 9th to 8th in points given up) and three spots on offense(23rd to 20th). The main difference was in the running game where they went from 23rd to 14th. A couple of teams in their division declined from the previous year, new orleans had a hurricane, they picked up 2 early wins against teams that were expected to be better than they were(vikes and packers) and voila(that's french!) 5-11 becomes 11-5. And that is not a young team either their best players are old, barber, brooks, rice and alscott.
Simple arithmetic tells us that there can't be more bad teams then good ones. In all the games played in a year half of those games will have a winner and half a loser. The difference between a 5-11 team or a 5-11 team can simply be a better attitude, confidence and a couple of key players, better luck with injury etc..
Look at tampa bay this year. There was little statistical difference between the team that went 5-11 in 04 and the team that went 11-5 in 2005. They only improved one spot on defense(from 9th to 8th in points given up) and three spots on offense(23rd to 20th). The main difference was in the running game where they went from 23rd to 14th. A couple of teams in their division declined from the previous year, new orleans had a hurricane, they picked up 2 early wins against teams that were expected to be better than they were(vikes and packers) and voila(that's french!) 5-11 becomes 11-5. And that is not a young team either their best players are old, barber, brooks, rice and alscott.
although the NFL is a zero sum game there can in fact be more bad than good teams at least from a won lost standpoint. In other words the 12 playoff teams could all have 12+ wins and the 20 non-playoff teams would have to average 10+ losses. meaning there could be 8 more bad teams than good teams as one example.
If you add up total wins in the league, they will equal total losses. That does not mean half the teams must have winning records and half have losing records. Last year 17 teams had winning records, 14 had losing records, and the Falcons were 8-8.
BAMARON said:
Great find. I did a little bit of research on that 1999 prediction vs what actually happened. Out of the top 6 teams in the league that year (teams with 11 or more wins) they only picked 2 of them to finish in the top 10. Out of the bottom 6 finishers (5 wins or less) guess how many of them made preseason top 10 rankings? 2 of them as well. In other words, a blindfolded chimp playing darts in a cave at midnight could do the same thing.
That's definitely part of the fun, that so much is unpredictable.
However, I'll still stand with my defense that the rankings are not intended to predict season outcomes, but are intended to be the makers take on where the teams are right now. That's why during the season the rankings don't just reflect the standings based on record. If a team has had three easy wins, they might be below a team with a worse record that's playing better games. Trouble with offseason rankings is that we have even less to go on. I think the interesting thing will be to look at how these rankings compare to the pre week 1 rankings. Who will rise and who will fall between now and then?
However, I'll still stand with my defense that the rankings are not intended to predict season outcomes, but are intended to be the makers take on where the teams are right now. That's why during the season the rankings don't just reflect the standings based on record. If a team has had three easy wins, they might be below a team with a worse record that's playing better games. Trouble with offseason rankings is that we have even less to go on. I think the interesting thing will be to look at how these rankings compare to the pre week 1 rankings. Who will rise and who will fall between now and then?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
