Don't you hate when everyone at work knows you like a certain team, and then everyone feels they need to make a comment the day after they lose a huge game on National TV? Things like, "I thought you'd call in sick after the way your Rams played," or "I thought Sam Bradford was better than that," or "That Pete Carroll sure knows how to coach a winner." Those are the kind of comments that make me want to vomit. I just want to stand up, walk out, and never come back.
Sure, the Rams/Seahawks "NFC West Championship Game" on Sunday Night Football was a huge bust for me. I watched as my boys just got absolutely nothing done. Despite the defense doing pretty well against the eventual playoff bound 7-9 team, the Rams offense was just pathetic. Sam Bradford went 19 of 36 for 155. He threw zero TDs and one INT. Has anyone been paying attention to what I've been saying about him ALL year? Steven Jackson carried the ball 11 times for just 45 yards. He also led the receivers with 4 for 39. It was a slow, sickly looking offensive effort. 2 for 14 (14%) on third downs, just 184 total yards gained, and 3 sacks allowed (while getting to Seattle's QB zero times). It was a battle between two bad teams, and the Rams were just that much more bad.
However, at 7-9, the Rams finished with more wins than they had in their last 3 seasons combined. Despite finishing below .500, not making the playoffs, and choking on the division title, the Rams had a very good bounce back season by recent Ram standards. Of course, a lot of people (our friends at ESPN included) are frustrated that the 7-9 Seahawks are even getting into the playoffs (the first sub-.500 division champs in history, by the way) when there are much better teams who didn't qualify.
In reality, there aren't actually that many teams who are better record wise. In the AFC, the 9-7 Chargers, the 8-8 Jags, and 8-8 Raiders didn't make it, and in the NFC, only the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had a better record than Seattle and didn't make the playoffs. While I think it's stupid to argue that the NFC West division winner shouldn't make the playoffs because they're worse that the third place team in the NFC South, I think that the Buccaneers and their fans clearly have the best argument of the teams left on the outside looking in. However, maybe that's only on face value. When you really break it down, are the Buccaneers possibly even worse than my Rams?
I know it may seem like an insane argument to make, but that's what I like to do. I mean, the Bucs finished 10-6 and the Rams finished 7-9. The Bucs beat the Rams on October 24, 18-17 (but it was on a last second play to win the game, a game the Rams should have won). The Bucs finished with a +23 point differential, while the Rams finished -39. Seems like an open and shut case. Until we look a little closer. When judging football teams, both college and pro, we always have to ask the question: "Who did they beat?" When we start to answer that question, we start to see that my insane argument may hold a little water.
Just who did the Bucs beat? Cleveland, Carolina (twice), Cincinnati, the Rams (again, on a lucky last second play), Arizona, San Francisco, Washington, Seattle, and a New Orleans squad resting all of their starters for the final week of the season (they had Chase Daniels in at QB for Pete's sake). The collective record of the teams Tampa Bay beat is 55-105, which comes out to a .343 WIN%. However, if you drop the Saints win as an outlier because they weren't truly playing a fully loaded (or fully trying) Saints squad, that number drops to a .305 WIN%.
So, who did the Rams beat? Washington, Seattle, San Diego, Carolina, Denver, Arizona, and San Francisco. The collective record of those teams is 39-73, which works out to a .348 WIN%. That's .005 better than the teams that the Bucs beat if you include the Saints "B" squad, and .043 better if you drop that one. Overall, the Rams beat better teams than Tampa Bay. Prior to beating the Saints second stringers, the Bucs didn't have a single win against a +.500 team. The Rams shocked the football world earlier in the season by beating a Charger team trying their heats out, and they finished 9-7.
So what do you think? Do I have a point here?
In the interest of full statistical disclosure, the win percentage of the teams that Tampa Bay lost to (.697) is far superior to the win percentage of the teams that the Rams lost to (.527). Also, Pro Football Reference lists Tampa Bay's Strength of Schedule at -2.0, while they give the Rams a -4.2 (0.0 would be the NFL average SoS).
Despite that, I think I have shown that the Bucs are not nearly as good as their 10-6 record says they are. And clearly they aren't as good as their fans say they are.
Of course, neither the Rams nor the Bucs are in the playoffs, so I guess, in that way, we both suck.
-- Sent from my Palm Prē
0 comments:
Post a Comment