- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Worst team to ever win a Championship
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:18 pm to Bench McElroy
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:18 pm to Bench McElroy
so great teams are measured by total offense and total defense now....2 statistics that are measured by total yards/allowed?
a team like NO in 2009 that had the best offense in the NFL and led the NFL in takeaways isn't impressive to you because the Saints yielded 350 yards per game?
thats just 1 example.
that's an asinine way to determine great teams
a team like NO in 2009 that had the best offense in the NFL and led the NFL in takeaways isn't impressive to you because the Saints yielded 350 yards per game?
thats just 1 example.
that's an asinine way to determine great teams
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 1:19 pm
1
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:23 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
a team like NO in 2009 that had the best offense in the NFL and led the NFL in takeaways isn't impressive to you because the Saints yielded 350 yards per game?
The Saints were one of the better Super Bowl champions in the last decade and their defense was mediocre at best. And just because the defense created a lot of turnovers doesn't mean they were good. Points and yards allowed per game are much better statistics to go by and the Saints were piss poor in both categories.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:27 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
Auburn this past year!! So undeserving! What a waste of space on this planet!
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:27 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
And just because the defense created a lot of turnovers doesn't mean they were good.
what does it mean then?
quote:
Points and yards allowed per game are much better statistics to go by and the Saints were piss poor in both categories.
they started 13-0 and because of having the lead in just about all of those games, teams racked up yardage as well as points trying to come back
when you score fast, and score off turnovers like the Saints did that season, means the other team gets more possessions. Couple that with the soft defenses you see to protect from big plays and those stats become questionable at best.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:29 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
Tie between 2010 Duke & 2011 UCONN
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:35 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
2009 Saints
Not sure if serious.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:38 pm to RunningHeel
I'm a Cardinals fan, and I'll admit the '06 stunk, but a lot has to be said that they didn't just luck out in one game. They had to win 3 series to get it......but yeah, they were awful.
'09 Saints. Someone needs to be punched for suggesting this.
'09 Saints. Someone needs to be punched for suggesting this.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:40 pm to sicboy
Mets were the best team in the majors that year. That series still sickens me. Screw Heilman and whichever Molina brother it was that hit that HR.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:40 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
what does it mean then?
Turnovers aren't a good statistics to judge a team's defense. Do you think the Bengals had a good defense from 2004-2007? They were 3rd in the NFL in forced turnovers in 2004, 1st in forced turnovers in 2005, 8th in forced turnovers in 2006 and 3rd in forced turnovers in 2007. Their offense was well above average in every one of those years. Yet they only finished over .500 once and never won a playoff game during that stretch. You know why? Because the only time their defense could stop the opposing team was by creating turnovers. The opposing team usually moved the ball up and down the field and scored during the other times they had the ball.
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 6/15/11 at 1:51 pm to Bench McElroy
I can just as easily find teams that didnt give up a lot of yards who had shite teams as well.
outside of PPG, turovers are the next important thing.
as far as those Bengals teams, their defense was usually serviceable during those years. Playing in the division they were in is a big reason for how average they were all together. And i wont even get into there coaching situation. on another note, their +/- differential was probably closer to even, which isnt horrible, but not great either.
all this getting away from the main point. its tougher to win in the NFL now that it was back in the day. Not giving enough credit to recent winners because of yardage is just stupid.
outside of PPG, turovers are the next important thing.
as far as those Bengals teams, their defense was usually serviceable during those years. Playing in the division they were in is a big reason for how average they were all together. And i wont even get into there coaching situation. on another note, their +/- differential was probably closer to even, which isnt horrible, but not great either.
all this getting away from the main point. its tougher to win in the NFL now that it was back in the day. Not giving enough credit to recent winners because of yardage is just stupid.
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:03 pm to Lester Earl
quote:But not as many. There is a strong correlation between not giving up yards and not giving up points for reasons so obvious I won't go into them. Not allowing points leads directly to winning. Forced turnovers do not have as strong of a correlation to wins. Also, yardage stats tend to be consistent from year to year. A good defense will consistently not allow many yards. Turnovers are not quite random, but close to it. Forced turnovers fluctuate so wildly that's it difficult to call it a repeatable skill.
I can just as easily find teams that didnt give up a lot of yards who had shite teams as well.
I don't see what's assinine about looking at yardage stats in addition to a team's record and it's point differentials (which I dothink matters more than yards -- we should rate offenses and defenses by scoring).
Anyway, the first Patriots team to win a title wasn't very good. We forget that because they became great later. But that 2001 team was pretty mediocre. The 2002 Bucs weren't that strong either.
The 1987 Twins are the gold standard of "lousy" World Series champs, but the 1990 Reds give them a good run.
the 1993 Habs are probably the worst NHL champs, but who doesn't love that team? Aside from Leafs fans.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:05 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
Mets were the best team in the majors that year. That series still sickens me. Screw Heilman and whichever Molina brother it was that hit that HR.
This one was so sweet cuz Beltran had terrorized the Cards in the playoffs with the Astros for 2 straight years. I screamed when Yadi clutched probably one of the nastier pitches I've seen in postseason history (homer statement).
YADI!!!!!
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:09 pm to sicboy
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:10 pm to stapuffmarshy
quote:
2006 Cardinals in a runaway
Cardinals that year were a true embodiment of team unlike the misfits the Yankees or Cowboys have tried to put together.
This year's Green Bay should not have even made the playoffs if it were not for a blown call that prevented the Tampa Bay Buc's from going.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:13 pm to Baloo
quote:
The 1987 Twins are the gold standard of "lousy" World Series champs, but the 1990 Reds give them a good run.
The 1990 Reds had Barry Larkin in his prime, Eric Davis before he had all the injury issues, Paul O'Neill, Jose Rijo and a sick bullpen. They also swept a 103 win Oakland A's team with Rickey Henderson, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire and Dennis Eckersley. If you want to include a team that did beat those great Oakland A's teams, a team like the '88 Dodgers would have fit much better on the list than the '90 Reds. I agree with you whole-heartedly about the Twins though. Only team to ever win the World Series with a negative run differential and they were something like 31-50 at home. The Twins were just lucky to be in a substantially weaker division while the Tigers had to work their asses off to squeak by the Blue Jays and the other superior AL East teams.
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:16 pm to WelcomeToDeathValley
quote:
Italy won 2004, dont you ever forget it
this is so awesome
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:26 pm to Baloo
quote:
Forced turnovers do not have as strong of a correlation to wins.
over total yards?
meh. Not sure how you can say that. Generally teams that force a lot of turnovers make the playoffs, or are on the cusp.
we were talking strictly defense above, but in an overall picture turnover margin might be the most single important stat in football. Takeways just happen to be half of that equation.
for example your 2010 San Diego Chargers led the NFL in yards against. St Louis Rams were 19th in the same category.
however both gave up 20 PPG.
difference is, StL was +5 in turnover margin and SD was -6. San Diego gave up on average almost 70 more yards per game than STL, yet they both gave up the same amount of points per game.
if your turnover margin is great, like the Saints in 2009, then that is a sign of a great team.
quote:
Turnovers are not quite random, but close to it. Forced turnovers fluctuate so wildly that's it difficult to call it a repeatable skill.
looking at 1 specific team year to year, maybe.
but shite many NFL defenses change year to year, so you can easily say that the yards stat changes pretty frequently as well.
looking at the playoff teams from each year you'll almost always find them in the top half of the league in turnovers, however.
that percentage goes even higher when you look at +/- as a team, not just takeaways.
This post was edited on 6/15/11 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:34 pm to Lester Earl
Just going 1 step further....
Let say in any giving season, your defense could have 40 turnovers on the year, or give up on averge 280 yards per game.
Which would you take?
I am taking the 40 TOs. That's 40 extra possessions for my offense. Potential for good field position, momentum swing, and of course the occasional touchdown.
Let say in any giving season, your defense could have 40 turnovers on the year, or give up on averge 280 yards per game.
Which would you take?
I am taking the 40 TOs. That's 40 extra possessions for my offense. Potential for good field position, momentum swing, and of course the occasional touchdown.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:50 pm to Bench McElroy
The A's team they beat was disgustingly good. It's amazing they won only one title.
The 1990 Reds won only 91 games, which is one of the lowest win totals ever (obivously not 87 Twins or 06 Cards, who were already covered). Their rotation was Rijo, Browning, Jacjson, Armstrong which was pretty weak for a World Series winner. they did have that great pen and Barry Larkin, but O'Niell wasn't that great, and they had some serious lineup holes (Hatcher, Oliver, and Benzinger). I loved that team, and pennants fly forever... but it wasn't a strong WS champ.
The 1990 Reds won only 91 games, which is one of the lowest win totals ever (obivously not 87 Twins or 06 Cards, who were already covered). Their rotation was Rijo, Browning, Jacjson, Armstrong which was pretty weak for a World Series winner. they did have that great pen and Barry Larkin, but O'Niell wasn't that great, and they had some serious lineup holes (Hatcher, Oliver, and Benzinger). I loved that team, and pennants fly forever... but it wasn't a strong WS champ.
Posted on 6/15/11 at 2:58 pm to Lester Earl
I'm not saying turnovers don't have an impact... I'm saying that a positive turnover differential is largely random. It's not a skill of a great defense, it's just the way the ball bounced that year. Great defenses prevent teams from scoring, usually by preventing yards gained. But a mediocre defense can appear great with a lot of takeways.
I'm not disputing the impact of turnovers, I'm disputing whether a team can reliably control turnovers. They aren't completely random, but teams can't really control their +/-. If you want to guess a team that will disappoint next season, look for a team with a huge turnover differential. They are likely not as good as their record.
I'm not disputing the impact of turnovers, I'm disputing whether a team can reliably control turnovers. They aren't completely random, but teams can't really control their +/-. If you want to guess a team that will disappoint next season, look for a team with a huge turnover differential. They are likely not as good as their record.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News