- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Do you want the Saints to lose?
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:20 pm to abspackinheat
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:20 pm to abspackinheat
quote:
In the Super Bowl era, only 2 teams have an undefeated NFL regular season... One of those teams won the Super Bowl and the other team lost on the greatest play in super bowl history. I like my 50/50 odds.
Much worse than the odds of teams that have lost 1-2 games in a seson...
This is ridiculous. Of those 2 teams, the one that lost PUBLICLY ADMITTED that the pressure of undefeated got to them.
Your claim about
quote:is terrible. There are much greater odds for teams with 1 or 2 loses to win the SB. Other than the Dolphins and Pats, EVERY OTHER SB WINNER has had at least one loss. You proved my point, not yours.
Much worse than the odds of teams that have lost 1-2 games in a seson...
2
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:22 pm to Tmon225
quote:
Considering what this franchise has (not) accomplished since it's inception, I would say that 13-0 and clinching a playoff spot in November was highly unlikely...might as well stay consistent
This is probably the most rational, intelligent and believable answer in the entire thread.
Kudos.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:23 pm to OPR
quote:
the one that lost PUBLICLY ADMITTED that the pressure of undefeated got to them.
mighty convenient excuse for that losing team wouldn't you think? They just got beat by that team and ironically, those two teams played in one of the last weeks of the season which was the biggest factor more than anything when they faced the 2nd time around.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:24 pm to OPR
quote:
is terrible. There are much greater odds for teams with 1 or 2 loses to win the SB. Other than the Dolphins and Pats, EVERY OTHER SB WINNER has had at least one loss. You proved my point, not yours.
That is not the correct way to look at it. A higher percentage of teams have gone to the Superbowl that were undefeated (100%) than teams with 1-2 losses (somewhere well below 100%). 50% of the teams that were undefeated won the Superbowl. Someone will have to look up the stat of the percentage of teams to win the Superbowl with 1 loss and the percentage of teams to win the SB with 2 losses.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:32 pm to DestrehanTiger
quote:
That is not the correct way to look at it. A higher percentage of teams have gone to the Superbowl that were undefeated (100%) than teams with 1-2 losses (somewhere well below 100%). 50% of the teams that were undefeated won the Superbowl. Someone will have to look up the stat of the percentage of teams to win the Superbowl with 1 loss and the percentage of teams to win the SB with 2 losses.
A two team sample size has no bearing on accuracy? Please.
The fact is, of the 43 SB's played, 42 of the winners were 1 loss or more teams. ONE of them was undefeated.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:33 pm to OPR
quote:
The fact is, of the 43 SB's played, 42 of the winners were 1 loss or more teams. ONE of them was undefeated.
But you are making it sound like all of those 43 teams were playing for an undefeated season at some point and a late loss helped them...that is simply a fallacy
This post was edited on 12/14/09 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:34 pm to OPR
quote:
The fact is, of the 43 SB's played
and zero of them were the Saints...
We're not going to win! :ONOZZZZZZZZ:Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:36 pm to Tmon225
quote:
But you are making it sound like all of those 43 teams were playing for an undefeated season at some point
Of course they were. Every single one of them started out 0-0. Whether it was the first game they lost, or the last, they were ALL "playing for an undefeated season" at some point. Would you consider the Saints as "playing for an undefeated season" a the half way point? After the Giants game? Where's the cut off?
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:37 pm to OPR
quote:
Where's the cut off?
The cut off is the correlation from being undefeated to causing a super bowl loss. You are providing a 50/50 correlation out of 2 samples. Sounds like no correlation IMO.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:37 pm to OPR
quote:
The fact is, of the 43 SB's played, 42 of the winners were 1 loss or more teams. ONE of them was undefeated.
Having just wrapped up a statistics class at LSU, I feel this is a pretty easy one to explain. If you want to say it is easier to win a Superbowl by having 1 or 2 losses, you can't look at the overall season. Of course more teams have won the SB by losing 1+ games. But, to compare the chances, you have to compare
1. The percentage chance of winning the SB GIVEN you are already undefeated
vs.
2. The percentage chance of winning the SB GIVEN you have 1 loss
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:38 pm to OPR
quote:
Of course they were. Every single one of them started out 0-0. Whether it was the first game they lost, or the last, they were ALL "playing for an undefeated season" at some point. Would you consider the Saints as "playing for an undefeated season" a the half way point? After the Giants game? Where's the cut off?
There is a reason only 7 teams in history have been 12-0 and 4 out 5(09 Saints and Colts to be determined) have made it to the Super Bowl
Going undefeated past 10 games is rare
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:38 pm to OPR
quote:
In a round about way, yes. Had we lost 1 or 2 games EARLIER (not right now) in the year by this run, run, run method, I would have more confidence that GW would both recognize this strategy AND be able to adjust to it faster in the playoffs. As it stands right now, the Offense has bailed him out of these type games so far. And if we get into a playoff game with a sputtering offense (playing tight because 17-0 is getting to them) and someone runs the ball for 45 minutes, we'll get bounced. That's all. I'm concerned. Not hoping, or praying for or expecting a loss. Just worried.
Do you even watch the game. Williams has very little to work with because of all the injury's on D. The man has done an unbelievable job this year.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:40 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
and zero of them were the Saints..
Which is exactly why you can't ignore the "mojo" aspect of being undefeated in the playoffs. We've got so much garbage to overcome, adding undefeated on top might be the straw that broke the camels back.
Like I said before, it's moot now. Losing now does more damage because it shakes confidence going into the playoffs. So we had better win out now. I'm simply stating that being 16-0 adds more pressure, whether the team admits it or not. I don't want anything taking our focus away from the goal, SB or nothing.
For the record, do you think that the Giants SB win is tainted because they were a wild card team?
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:42 pm to OPR
quote:
I'm simply stating that being 16-0 adds more pressure, whether the team admits it or not.
So does being the number 1 seed... should we give that up too?
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:42 pm to OPR
quote:
Which is exactly why you can't ignore the "mojo" aspect of being undefeated in the playoffs. We've got so much garbage to overcome, adding undefeated on top might be the straw that broke the camels back.
I feel like it is the exact opposite situation. The Pats were going for their 4th title, so going undefeated put more pressure on them to differentiate themselves from the three champions before them. The Saints will still have pressure to win the franchise's first SB regardless of being undefeated or not.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:43 pm to OPR
quote:
The fact is, of the 43 SB's played, 42 of the winners were 1 loss or more teams. ONE of them was undefeated.
Thats because barely anyone goes undefeated. They're not going to go out there like;
"Hey guys lets drop this game so we can win a superbowl.". Losing or winning a game thats not relevant at all to the Superbowl or any playoff game is not going to change any chance at a Superbowl win. If we go 9-7 and make the Playoffs and win the Superbowl, hooray. If we go 16-0 and win the Superbowl, hooray again. It doesn't matter what our record is. The Patriots lost the game in the Superbowl after going 18-0 because of the Giants and their play in the game. The Patriots didn't drop it for some "pressure" of going 19-0. Resting players can help our odds at winning the Superbowl because of them not getting injured, but then on the other side of that they can get rusty. Either way it's a gamble. We have the first round bye in place and once we get homefield advantage I believe we should take it a bit more easy, but still go for 16-0. Take the shot at totally undefeated and be the first team to do it while were here. The only games that matter are the ones leading up to the Superbowl, and the Superbowl-nothing else will interfere with those other than the normal things.
And on another note. Lets beat down the Cowboys in the Superdome.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:43 pm to Chad504boy
I hope we lose the rest of our games. This team needs a wake up call. I jumped on this wagon bc they were destroying teams. Now I don't really give a frick. These close games have got me thinking here goes the downfall. It's the saints they are gonna blow it like always. So we need to lose. A loss will better this team.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:44 pm to Blitzed
please tell me that is sarcasm
Posted on 12/14/09 at 1:47 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
So does being the number 1 seed... should we give that up too?
Not even close to the same thing and you know it.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News