- 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
Hot teams, resting players, and recent history
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:09 pm
If we were up 48-3 in the 4th quarter of a game and Brees broke his leg, would you be upset?
This is essentially the same thing. We had nothing to gain or lose today.
And please, spare me the "rhythm" argument. It has nothing to do with it. Soemtimes teams just play better than everyone else in the playoffs. It's nothing to do with rhythm or being hot. That whole thing is nothing more than a myth.
Last season Pittsburgh played Arizona in the Super Bowl, both finishing the season with 1 game winning "streaks". While Indy had 9, Miami 5, San Diego 4, Atlanta 3. How'd ending the season "hot" work for them?
In 07, San Diego had 6 and Washington 4. No Super Bowl. And of course we know NE won 18 in a row...and lost the Super Bowl to NY who lost their final game of the season, but went on a tear in the playoffs.
06- Baltimore 4, San Diego 10, Jets 3, Philadelphia 5. Super Bowl? Indy 1, Chicago lost their finale.
I guess what I'm saying is...as far as the hot team always getting to the Super Bowl myth...
This is essentially the same thing. We had nothing to gain or lose today.
And please, spare me the "rhythm" argument. It has nothing to do with it. Soemtimes teams just play better than everyone else in the playoffs. It's nothing to do with rhythm or being hot. That whole thing is nothing more than a myth.
Last season Pittsburgh played Arizona in the Super Bowl, both finishing the season with 1 game winning "streaks". While Indy had 9, Miami 5, San Diego 4, Atlanta 3. How'd ending the season "hot" work for them?
In 07, San Diego had 6 and Washington 4. No Super Bowl. And of course we know NE won 18 in a row...and lost the Super Bowl to NY who lost their final game of the season, but went on a tear in the playoffs.
06- Baltimore 4, San Diego 10, Jets 3, Philadelphia 5. Super Bowl? Indy 1, Chicago lost their finale.
I guess what I'm saying is...as far as the hot team always getting to the Super Bowl myth...
2
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:10 pm to SaintLSUnAtl
who dat!
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:11 pm to SaintLSUnAtl
No team has ever lost the last three games of the regular season and still made it to the Super Bowl, much less won it...
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:13 pm to Pierre Fromage
quote:
No team has ever lost the last three games of the regular season and still made it to the Super Bowl, much less won it...
The Saints have never made it to the SB. Does not mean they won't.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:13 pm to Pierre Fromage
quote:
No team has ever lost the last three games of the regular season and still made it to the Super Bowl, much less won it...
How many of those teams won 13 games before it? Honest question
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:13 pm to Pierre Fromage
quote:
No team has ever lost the last three games of the regular season and still made it to the Super Bowl, much less won it...
we ignore the trends we dont want to hear but "myth" bust the ones that we do want to hear
ironic
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:14 pm to Pierre Fromage
good post
If everyone here would just go by what history says then..... The saints have NEVER been to or won a superbowl.
things change. have faith.
who dat?!?
If everyone here would just go by what history says then..... The saints have NEVER been to or won a superbowl.
things change. have faith.
who dat?!?
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:25 pm to rintintin
quote:
How many of those teams won 13 games before it? Honest question
Without looking I'd guess none
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:26 pm to Pierre Fromage
OK, I'll ignore you ignorant and foolish confusion of coincidence with causality and humor your dumbass for a second.
How many teams that ended the season with three consecutive losses had clinched their division and/or homefield and a bye?
Hell, how many teams who ended the season on a three game losing streak have made the playoffs?
I mean, frick, if people have to be licensed to practice law and medicine, they should have to pass a test to use statistics. This shite really pisses me the frick off, and has for quite some time.
Both you and Lester need to go out and acquire some intellect.
How many teams that ended the season with three consecutive losses had clinched their division and/or homefield and a bye?
Hell, how many teams who ended the season on a three game losing streak have made the playoffs?
I mean, frick, if people have to be licensed to practice law and medicine, they should have to pass a test to use statistics. This shite really pisses me the frick off, and has for quite some time.
Both you and Lester need to go out and acquire some intellect.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:30 pm to Sophandros
I didnt introduce the stat, but Im guessing since Fox brought it up, it has at least happened before.
I dont think its relevant to say that we have clinched the division and homefield bye. We were still playing for something as of last week. We played our starters all game. That would only hold water based on today, a game in which we didnt play at full strength.
Again, I dont know the numbers. But you dont have to win a lot of games to go on a 3 game losing streak at the end of the year and still make the playoffs, theoretically.
quote:
How many teams that ended the season with three consecutive losses had clinched their division and/or homefield and a bye?
I dont think its relevant to say that we have clinched the division and homefield bye. We were still playing for something as of last week. We played our starters all game. That would only hold water based on today, a game in which we didnt play at full strength.
quote:
Hell, how many teams who ended the season on a three game losing streak have made the playoffs?
Again, I dont know the numbers. But you dont have to win a lot of games to go on a 3 game losing streak at the end of the year and still make the playoffs, theoretically.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:40 pm to Lester Earl
First of all, do your research.
Second, you agreed with this premise on another thread and you agree with it now. In both cases, it's foolish. Do you understand the difference between coincidence and causality? Or even between correlation and causality? I seriously doubt that you do, or you wouldn't believe such assinine shite as what you posted.
I'll bet you the rest of my income that the sample size of teams that made the playoffs--let alone won their division and clinched homefield throughout--is so small that it is statistically insignificant and that no conclusions can be drawn from them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the sample was ZERO. Thus, tossing out a stat like that was, at best, lazy and irresponsible. Blindly repeating it without further consideration is just stupid.
Homefield advantage throughout is extremely relvant, as the primary reason that the Saints lost today is that they clinched, regardless of how it happened. In fact, the style of play has changed ever since the division was clinched. So yeah, it's relevant, as it is a primary driver of HOW things went the way they have since the Patriots game.
Second, you agreed with this premise on another thread and you agree with it now. In both cases, it's foolish. Do you understand the difference between coincidence and causality? Or even between correlation and causality? I seriously doubt that you do, or you wouldn't believe such assinine shite as what you posted.
I'll bet you the rest of my income that the sample size of teams that made the playoffs--let alone won their division and clinched homefield throughout--is so small that it is statistically insignificant and that no conclusions can be drawn from them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the sample was ZERO. Thus, tossing out a stat like that was, at best, lazy and irresponsible. Blindly repeating it without further consideration is just stupid.
Homefield advantage throughout is extremely relvant, as the primary reason that the Saints lost today is that they clinched, regardless of how it happened. In fact, the style of play has changed ever since the division was clinched. So yeah, it's relevant, as it is a primary driver of HOW things went the way they have since the Patriots game.
This post was edited on 1/3/10 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:44 pm to Sophandros
the Saints have never been to the super bowl we're trying to break that trend to begin with.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 4:47 pm to Sophandros
quote:
First of all, do your research.
I am afraid to, actually. You can do it. Otherwise you sitting here lecturing me is no better than what I am doing, hypocrite.
quote:
Do you understand the difference between coincidence and causality? Or even between correlation and causality? I seriously doubt that you do, or you wouldn't believe such assinine shite as what you posted.
So you think the last 3 weeks is coincidental?
quote:
-let alone won their division and clinched homefield throughout-
Again, this is irrelevant considering we tried to win vs Dal and vs TB at full strength and lost. It would be different if we folded, but we didn't.
a team, theoretically could make the playoffs with 8 or 9 wins and lose their last 3 games and still make the playoffs.
You dont have to win the division or win 13 games to be a part of this equation.
The Saints playing and trying to win 2 of the last 3 games absolutely puts them in this number.
I don't see how they are immune to it.
quote:
Blindly repeating it without further consideration is just stupid.
Blindly dismissing it without knowing isn't much better either.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 5:03 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
at full strength and lost
Define full strength.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 5:07 pm to notiger1997
playing people that were able to play
Posted on 1/3/10 at 5:10 pm to Lester Earl
To me that is not full strength.
As has been discussed at great length around here, having a healthy secondary(meaning not playing some guy who was sitting in the stands a month ago) will aid the Saints in their run support efforts greatly.
Having Moore and Shockey healthy will help Drew out with the shorter passing game in case Bushrod is still having his troubles.
As has been discussed at great length around here, having a healthy secondary(meaning not playing some guy who was sitting in the stands a month ago) will aid the Saints in their run support efforts greatly.
Having Moore and Shockey healthy will help Drew out with the shorter passing game in case Bushrod is still having his troubles.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 5:12 pm to notiger1997
quote:
To me that is not full strength.
comparing it to what happened today, where some starters played and some that were nicked up didnt play, but could have played.
however u want to word it.
our offense wasnt hampered in those games by injuries
This post was edited on 1/3/10 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 1/3/10 at 6:37 pm to Sophandros
I sincerely apologize if my pointing out that the Saints would be unique by losing their last three regular season games and still winning the Super Bowl bothers you. Insulting the intellect of a person you don't even know just because he posts something you don't want to hear is sophomoric and ignorant. Do yourself a favor and piss off.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 6:44 pm to Pierre Fromage
What are the stats for the Saints when they play ALL of their playoff games at home?
Oh that's right, we are in un-trendable statistical territory.
Sorry to inform you, arguments about trends/stats are not relevant to any Saints 2010 playoff discussion.
Oh that's right, we are in un-trendable statistical territory.
Sorry to inform you, arguments about trends/stats are not relevant to any Saints 2010 playoff discussion.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 6:50 pm to LSUFreek
Listen guys... I, more than anything, want the Saints to win it all. I have been a frustrated Saints fan all my life. I am just hoping that I will see the team that dominated the Eagles and the Pats come playoff time. That's all. I am not trying to pretend that I know any more than anyone else. Obviously, many of you are pro football experts. My apologies for posting in your thread. We are in uncharted territory here with our beloved Saints, and I am just a little nervous. That being said, the personal attacks on the intellect of those who may not agree with you on this board is un-called for and juvenile
This post was edited on 1/3/10 at 6:57 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News