There are two perennially overrated teams in the NFL. Here are the records for three NFL teams over the past few years.
Team 1
8-8
8-8
8-8
2-14
Team 2
9-7
9-7
10-6
7-9
Team 3
8-8
9-7
5-11
6-10
I removed the best year out of all three teams. Team One is six games under .500, Team Two is one game over .500, and Team Three is four games under .500. None of those records are spectacular or even good. They all have one really good year but nothing other than that illustrates that they are a perennial contender for the Lombardi Trophy.
Here are two winning teams over the last five years, with their off year removed.
Team 4
12-4
10-6
14-2
14-2
Team 5
13-3
10-6
10-6
9-7
Now if either of these teams had an off year they wouldn't suddenly be considered bad. Team 4 is 18 games over .500 and Team 5 is 10 games over .500. Both teams went 9-7 and missed the playoffs in their off year. Even with an off year and missing the playoffs Team 4 and Team 5 would still be considered perennial playoff contenders. Why aren't Teams 1, 2, and 3 considered average?
Team 1 has missed the playoffs in all four years except their on year at 11-5. Team 2 has actually made the playoffs most years but still didn't perform incredibly in regular season, they had a really nice on year though. Team 3 is underrated compared to Team 1 and 2, they had a good on year like the other teams and made the playoffs. To my recollection Team 3 hasn't been a 'Super Bowl Contender' like Team 1 and 2. Team 1 and 2 aren't Super Bowl contenders either. Well Team 2 is a contender to get to the Super Bowl, just not win it because they play in the NFC.
Team 1 - Cincinnati Bengals (11-5 on year)
Team 2 - Seattle Seahawks (13-3 on year)
Team 3 - Jacksonville Jaguars (12-4 on year)
Team 4 - New England Patriots
Team 5 - Denver Broncos
Why is Cincy and Seattle perennial Super Bowl contenders according to the expects but Jacksonville isn't? Well because the Seahawks and Bengals are teams that rely on flashy offenses and adequate defenses and Jaguars have a good defense and an adequate offense. It is better to root and pick the flashy offense, better ratings. Too bad apparently 'good defense beats good offense in the playoffs.' Actually I believe you need both but let's look at the defense.
Super Bowl Winners Points Against Defense
'06 - 23rd
'05 - 3rd
'04 - 2nd
'03 - 1st
'02 - 1st
Seattle
'06 - 19th
'05 - 7th
'04 - 22nd
'03 - 16th
'02 - 24th
Cincinnati
'06 - 17th
'05 - 22nd
'04 - 21st
'03 - 28th
'02 - 32nd
The silly Colts and their incredible playoff defense ruins my theory but you get the point. Before you Seattle or Cincinnati fans make Super Bowl reservations this year Cincy is 26th in defense and Seattle is 8th. Well actually Seattle is doing pretty well but they are making that up by slipping to 21st in offense. I know it seems like I am picking on Seattle lately but I'm not. I'm mainly picking on the media. I still think Cincinnati and Seattle are overrated and have been for years.
2 comments:
Wow, did I write this post? :)
I went looking for some more interesting sets of records. Here are some "perennial losers'" last five years with their worst records removed:
Team A:
7-9
9-7
6-10
8-8
Combined 4 games under .500, but most people think they're hideous.
Team B:
6-10
9-7
10-6
9-7
Combined 4 games over .500.
Team A is Buffalo (9-7 season removed). Team B is Miami (10-6 season removed). Of course, they're largely "awful" because they haven't made the playoffs since 2000 and they don't have clearly established, big-name quarterbacks.
While I will side with that the flashy offense gets more buzz than a great defense I can't agree with you on QBs. To win in the NFL you need a good QB.
Post a Comment