outsiders article

[yavoon]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5131178

there is also more indepth stats at footballoutsiders.com

"Many fans believe that the best way to judge a team is its record against the other good teams on the schedule, and that the team with the best record against quality opponents is the team most likely to win the Super Bowl. This is a particular obsession of the New England-based website Cold Hard Football Facts, which keeps track of what it calls quality standings. As the site points out, the New England Patriots had the NFL's best record against winning teams in both 2003 and 2004, and won the Super Bowl both years.

But two seasons are not really enough to judge the accuracy of any statistic, so I went back a decade to test if quality winning percentage truly is the best indicator of how teams will fare in the postseason. Unlike the measures of GUTS and DOMINATIONS above, this time I counted every game against a team above .500 no matter the margin, and counted ties as half a win just like the official NFL standings.

It turns out that in the past 10 years, only three teams that led the league in quality winning percentage have emerged as Super Bowl champions. It just so happens that two of those teams were the 2003 and 2004 New England Patriots. (The other was the 1995 Dallas Cowboys.)"

[baja]

WOW this deserves a thread

[Old Dude]

Makes sense to me. Playing tough teams week in and out will usually wear down your roster. Playing cupcakes helps you stay healthy.

[Bronco LB 59]

Makes sense to me. Playing tough teams week in and out will usually wear down your roster. Playing cupcakes helps you stay healthy.

Othertimes, it is merely coincidental. If the eventual Super Bowl winner played the NFC West and AFC East this season, it would be difficult to fault them for beating pansies when they have no control over the schedule.

[Merlin]

Yavoon,
This is my slight problem with outsiders, every so often they make an assumption that I see little reason for; in this case, its their definition of a 500 team. According to the article they only look at how teams finished the year. I would argue you have to consider how the team was playing at the time of the win/loss. A team that is 5-1 could be playing much better than when it finishes 7-9 (and there could be a number of very valid reasons for the slide, e.g. injuries). Conversely a team could finish 9-7 or 10-6, but have played very poorly at the beginning of the yr, so teams that beat them then are getting undeserved credit. How a team finishes is a factor, but it is also critical how well they were playing at the time (which raises another problem with outsiders, their inability to truly account for injuries).

[yavoon]

Yavoon,
This is my slight problem with outsiders, every so often they make an assumption that I see little reason for; in this case, its their definition of a 500 team. According to the article they only look at how teams finished the year. I would argue you have to consider how the team was playing at the time of the win/loss. A team that is 5-1 could be playing much better than when it finishes 7-9 (and there could be a number of very valid reasons for the slide, e.g. injuries). Conversely a team could finish 9-7 or 10-6, but have played very poorly at the beginning of the yr, so teams that beat them then are getting undeserved credit. How a team finishes is a factor, but it is also critical how well they were playing at the time (which raises another problem with outsiders, their inability to truly account for injuries).

ur assumption is no more valid. teams could have a couple of road games and a close loss and start 1-3 when they actually play very good football. I dont see any problem w/ the assumption.

[Old Dude]

I recall the flip side of all of this coming up a couple years ago. The Chiefs were on a winning roll and were 9-2 or 10-1 or something like that, but were playing what was basically a last-place schedule and had drawn Houston and some AFC East wag while Denver had to play the Colts and the Patriots. Vermeil had said before the season started that the Chiefs had a favorable schedule and that it was a great opportunity - - because, among other things - - they could expect fewer injuries, wear and tear. And that's exactly how it played out. The Broncos lost Gold & Mobley & Pierce plus both safeties, and at least one of the corners. And that was just on defense. The offense fared better, but Jake missed three or four games, while Neil & Portis both got dinged badly toward the end. And all season long the Chiefs just seemed to fly through the schedule without anyone missing more than a game.

They finally went into a swoon in the famous "wrestling belt" game, and Minnesota cleaned their clock a week or two later. They'd still earned a first round bye, though, and had home field against the Colts, but ... that was the end of that.

I think that year was really the Chief's best chance at the super bowl over the past 35 years or so, and certainly their best chance in the Vermeil era, but they just couldn't quite pull it off.

They were a soft team that got fat on a soft schedule, favorable officiating, and pure luck, but they only got so far with it.

[yavoon]

I recall the flip side of all of this coming up a couple years ago. The Chiefs were on a winning roll and were 9-2 or 10-1 or something like that, but were playing what was basically a last-place schedule and had drawn Houston and some AFC East wag while Denver had to play the Colts and the Patriots. Vermeil had said before the season started that the Chiefs had a favorable schedule and that it was a great opportunity - - because, among other things - - they could expect fewer injuries, wear and tear. And that's exactly how it played out. The Broncos lost Gold & Mobley & Pierce plus both safeties, and at least one of the corners. And that was just on defense. The offense fared better, but Jake missed three or four games, while Neil & Portis both got dinged badly toward the end. And all season long the Chiefs just seemed to fly through the schedule without anyone missing more than a game.

They finally went into a swoon in the famous "wrestling belt" game, and Minnesota cleaned their clock a week or two later. They'd still earned a first round bye, though, and had home field against the Colts, but ... that was the end of that.

I think that year was really the Chief's best chance at the super bowl over the past 35 years or so, and certainly their best chance in the Vermeil era, but they just couldn't quite pull it off.

They were a soft team that got fat on a soft schedule, favorable officiating, and pure luck, but they only got so far with it.

like the 72 dolphins who played I think the fifth easiest schedule in modern football.