Official NFL 2010-2011 Thread

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

GO RAIDERS

W4rd.

 

I don't have to tell you how long it's been since we got consecutive wins. And for the first time since 2003 or so, I can honestly say that the Raiders do NOT suck. Offensively and defensively, they are by no means a weak team.

 

Next weekend is the huge test. If we can beat the Chiefs... well, one step at a time. The schedule isn't any sort of cakewalk through the rest of the season, but now that they have some confidence... you never know.

[GovernorSilver]

GO RAIDERS

W4rd.

 

I don't have to tell you how long it's been since we got consecutive wins. And for the first time since 2003 or so, I can honestly say that the Raiders do NOT suck. Offensively and defensively, they are by no means a weak team.

 

Next weekend is the huge test. If we can beat the Chiefs... well, one step at a time. The schedule isn't any sort of cakewalk through the rest of the season, but now that they have some confidence... you never know.

 

This is one of of the few instances I'll root for the Raiders. Can't let them get too far ahead in the divisional race. I think the Raiders have the horses to do it. The Chiefs have been winning without much of an offense, and that's got to catch up with them eventually.

[MikeT156]

Steelers stunk up the Superdome last night, I could smell it all the way here in central PA. The Saints two starting RB are out, all 3 of the corners are injured, and the Steelers didn't show up. They had first and goal with less than 1/2 yard to goal and they choked. I heard an interview with Hines Ward after the game and he said something to the effect that it was a "Playoff atmosphere with the Super Bowl Champions" and "Its hard to win on the road". Mike Tomlin said that the Steelers didn't handle the crowd noise very well.

 

Excuses, they were intimidated, and got out muscled by an injured Saints team. My Steelers are without Aaron Smith, but the Saints are the walking wounded. A number of Sports people were picking the Steelers to win the SB this year. I had my doubts, but now I'm convinced, they are not good enough.

 

Move over Dallas, you're not the only team that is underachieving.

 

 

 

Mike T.

[Magpel]

This perception is just wrong. MLB, which has no cap, has a much higher degree of parity than the NFL or the NBA. I'm not going to run the figures again this year (I did in last year's NFL thread) but over the last decade+, there have been more different winners of the championship in baseball than in either the NFL or the NBA, with MLB having no salary cap and fewer teams making the post season than either of the other leagues. The NBA is the worst of the 3 leagues, and the NFL is right behind. Sure, the Yankees are perennially good - like the Pats or the Colts, the Lakers or the Celts - but they haven't been able to approach a dynasty, while the Pats and Lakers have at least threatened with multiple championships.

 

Not so simple. Outcomes in baseball are frighteningly close to arbitrary. That said , the big salary teams spend an extra 100 million dollars a year to achieve an advantage that amounts to the difference between a 10-win and 9-win football team, and over the grueling course of 162 games, that advantage will express itself, bludgeon-like, and typically result in the higher paid team (assuming competent management) making the playoffs. The Yanks, Sox, Angels, Cards, Braves, Phils (and, oddly, the Twins) show up in the postseason again and again, in this era at least.

 

The max 19-game postseason is way too short a sample for that same advantage to express itself, so you simply cannot use WS championships as a measure of parity in MLB--playoff appearances are that measure. Only 8 teams make it (as opposed to 16 in the 30-team NBA), and by that light, parity does not really exist in the uncapped MLB.

 

It seems to me a certain kind of parity is built into baseball, where a dominant team has a regular season winning percentage akin to a modestly good 10-6 football team. And the worst baseball teams are a 6-10 football team--a compressed dynamic range, as it were, inherent in the vagaries of the sport. This is why championships are so unpredictable, but playoff appearances are pretty damn clockwork thanks to market and spending disparities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Magpel]

Or to put it another way, how many football teams won 11 straight division titles like the Braves? How many football teams made the playoffs 14 of 15 years like the Yanks?

[kanker.]

Or to put it another way, how many football teams won 11 straight division titles like the Braves? How many football teams made the playoffs 14 of 15 years like the Yanks?

The proof is in the results. 19 playoff games matter less than a max of 4 in football? Really? How many years has Manning missed the playoffs? Brady? Roethlisberger? How many times have the Colts won the AFC South (arguably the toughest division in football for the last decade)? What makes baseball seem so much less 'fair' is that so few teams get in compared to the other leagues, but when it's all said and done, there is a greater degree of diversity in the results in baseball than in basketball or football. Any team can win on any given Sunday, but when you go to a 5 or 7 game series, the better team, almost without exception, always wins.

[Griffinator]

I'm so glad we have at least one major league in which we don't have dominance by the same handful of teams year in and year out, ad infinitum.

 

Granted, it's the Rangers against the Giants in the World Series right now; but you know the Yankees will be back sometime soon.

This perception is just wrong. MLB, which has no cap, has a much higher degree of parity than the NFL or the NBA. I'm not going to run the figures again this year (I did in last year's NFL thread) but over the last decade+, there have been more different winners of the championship in baseball than in either the NFL or the NBA, with MLB having no salary cap and fewer teams making the post season than either of the other leagues. The NBA is the worst of the 3 leagues, and the NFL is right behind. Sure, the Yankees are perennially good - like the Pats or the Colts, the Lakers or the Celts - but they haven't been able to approach a dynasty, while the Pats and Lakers have at least threatened with multiple championships.

 

I dunno.

 

Frankly, I like the level playing field that the NFL provides - it rewards good ownership, good talent scouting, and good management. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are terrible owners (and terrible GM's) and hence they don't win with any degree of consistency, despite spending mountains of money on big name free agents. Bob Kraft, OTOH, is a great owner, trusts his people to make right decisions, and hence has a consistent winner of a franchise.

[GovernorSilver]

If the MLB has the same parity as the NFL, the Kansas City Royals should be in the playoffs once in a while.

[kanker.]

If the MLB has the same parity as the NFL, the Kansas City Royals should be in the playoffs once in a while.

You mean like the Arizona Cardinals, a team that's made the playoffs 6 times in their 90 years?

[Griffinator]

If the MLB has the same parity as the NFL, the Kansas City Royals should be in the playoffs once in a while.

 

Agreed. Them, and the Pirates, and the Orioles, and....

[kanker.]

...and the Lions, and the Browns, and the Texans, and...

[BlackandWhite]

Apparently, RM couldn't keep his mouth shut about his new employer, either.

 

Vikings Waive Moss

[GovernorSilver]

If the MLB has the same parity as the NFL, the Kansas City Royals should be in the playoffs once in a while.

You mean like the Arizona Cardinals, a team that's made the playoffs 6 times in their 90 years?

 

The Cardinals have been in the playoffs in recent years more frequently than the Royals, who posted a winning record only once in the past 15 years.

 

We are more likely to see the Cards upend an elite opponent than the Royals are to win a series vs. an elite MLB team.

 

I respect your passion for baseball, but you present only the championship games as an example of parity. Let's see how the bottom end of MLB looks like compared to the bottom of the NFL.

[kanker.]

Apparently, RM couldn't keep his mouth shut about his new employer, either.

 

Vikings Waive Moss

Heh. I swear, if that guy had heart....

[GovernorSilver]

If the MLB has the same parity as the NFL, the Kansas City Royals should be in the playoffs once in a while.

 

Agreed. Them, and the Pirates, and the Orioles, and....

 

Goddamm... 18 consecutive losing seasons by the Pirates... What team has had that many in the NFL recently?

[Dave Bryce]

Next weekend is the huge test. If we can beat the Chiefs....

Amazing how much the AFC West has changed this year...at least, at this point. Who'd have predicted that that the only team better than Raiders in the division almost halfway through the season would be the Chiefs?

 

dB

[kanker.]

I respect your passion for baseball, but you present only the championship games as an example of parity. Let's see how the bottom end of MLB looks like compared to the bottom of the NFL.

It's not that I'm particularly passionate about baseball, it's just that the results don't fit the complaints against baseball, and the results in football don't reflect a great degree of parity. For example, in the NFL, 1-15 and 2-14 teams are common. In 2010, the lowest winning percentage by an MLB team was the 57-105, .352 winning percentage Pittsburgh Pirates. In 2009, 7 NFL teams had lower winning percentages. Basically one quarter of the NFL performed worse than the single worst team in baseball. The 2009-10 NBA season saw 7 teams with worse winning percentages than the Pirates, and two more teams barely beat the Pirates at .354.

[Griffinator]

I respect your passion for baseball, but you present only the championship games as an example of parity. Let's see how the bottom end of MLB looks like compared to the bottom of the NFL.

It's not that I'm particularly passionate about baseball, it's just that the results don't fit the complaints against baseball, and the results in football don't reflect a great degree of parity. For example, in the NFL, 1-15 and 2-14 teams are common. In 2010, the lowest winning percentage by an MLB team was the 57-105, .352 winning percentage Pittsburgh Pirates. In 2009, 7 NFL teams had lower winning percentages. Basically one quarter of the NFL performed worse than the single worst team in baseball. The 2009-10 NBA season saw 7 teams with worse winning percentages than the Pirates, and two more teams barely beat the Pirates at .354.

 

Winning percentages are deceptive, though. With only 16 games to play in the NFL versus 162 in MLB, there are a lot more opportunities to "get lucky" in baseball.

[kanker.]

Winning percentages are deceptive, though. With only 16 games to play in the NFL versus 162 in MLB, there are a lot more opportunities to "get lucky" in baseball.

On the other hand, with only 16 games and a much greater number of teams getting into the playoffs, a team like the Cards that gets in 6 times in 90 years is inexcusable. A team like the Lions that hasn't made it in since the 90's is inexcusable. You're competing with 16 teams for 6 spots - VERY good odds...

[GovernorSilver]

I respect your passion for baseball, but you present only the championship games as an example of parity. Let's see how the bottom end of MLB looks like compared to the bottom of the NFL.

It's not that I'm particularly passionate about baseball, it's just that the results don't fit the complaints against baseball, and the results in football don't reflect a great degree of parity. For example, in the NFL, 1-15 and 2-14 teams are common. In 2010, the lowest winning percentage by an MLB team was the 57-105, .352 winning percentage Pittsburgh Pirates. In 2009, 7 NFL teams had lower winning percentages. Basically one quarter of the NFL performed worse than the single worst team in baseball. The 2009-10 NBA season saw 7 teams with worse winning percentages than the Pirates, and two more teams barely beat the Pirates at .354.

 

You obviously care more about baseball than I do anyway.

 

When I see the Royals play the Yankees (hypothetically) or the Pirates take on the Braves, I don't see as much of a chance of an upset like we're seeing with the Lions, Cardinals, etc when they take on better teams.

[kanker.]

You obviously care more about baseball than I do anyway.

Hehe - sometime my brain just gets stuck in an argumentative mode.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Next weekend is the huge test. If we can beat the Chiefs....

Amazing how much the AFC West has changed this year...at least, at this point. Who'd have predicted that that the only team better than Raiders in the division almost halfway through the season would be the Chiefs?

 

I never would have believed it a few months ago. No way.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Vikings Waive Moss

 

Honestly... what a great example of "people are who they are". He's going to be Randy Moss no matter what uniform he puts on. He'll make occasional spectacular, athletically freakish plays, and a short while later will halfheartedly wave at a ball as it whizzes by when he's feeling underloved.

 

I read a funny article that wondered if it's possible for the Browns to claim Moss so he can play against the Pats again next week.

[GovernorSilver]

This Moss thing keeps getting weirder:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81bca082/article/moss-still-a-viking-after-childress-says-wr-would-be-waived?module=breaking_news

 

 

[Bridog6996]

A puzzling move by the Vikings. Waiving Moss already? This makes no sense. Assuming it's a personality issue, the Vikings of all teams should have known exactly what they were getting when they made the deal with New England to begin with. On top of that, the Vikings are a team that can't afford to pass on talent right now. I don't care if you hate Moss as a person, you can't deny the talent and, if nothing else, "presence" that he brings to the field. Now they're going to let him walk with a chance that they'll be paying for him to play on another team?

 

I just don't get it. The Vikings brass must be high.

 

I would absolutely love it if Moss cleared waivers and ended up coming back to New England, where the Pats would only have to pay him the league minimum, with the rest of his contract still on the Vikings' tab. That would poetic on so many levels.

[Joe Muscara]

Maybe Childress feels he has enough to deal with as far as Favre* and dumping Moss was relatively easy and justifiable after Moss' press conference.

 

(If you missed Jimmy Johnson's segment about it on Fox NFL Sunday, this article sums it up.)

[Griffinator]

Jimmy Johnson has a lot of balls talking the talk after he failed to walk the walk.

 

Childress has the additional problem of the Vikes BEGGING Favre to come back this season.

[Geoff Grace]

Wow! I never realized what debate I would spark when I posted this morning!

 

I feel like such a troll!

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Griffinator]

I feel like such a troll!

 

You are, my brother, but in this thread, it's okay.

[Dan South]

Could Brad Childress be cracking under the strain of losing?

 

- Week 7, he expresses his frustrations with Favre in a public tirade.

 

- Week 8, he fires Moss on what appears to be a whim.

 

Those aren't the actions of a coach in control. He reminds me of desperate Jim Fassel as the end of his Giants career loomed large.

 

The Raiders look as motivated as the Cowboys look apathetic. I can't even enjoy watching the Cowboys lose this year. It's like rooting for the lions to eat an injured gazelle. So much for "America's Team."

 

Steelers and Jets = oops!