Why Bengals Fans Should Embrace the "Easy Schedule" Argument
by BeerRun on Nov 1, 2011 11:30 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintYesterday, CJ's CIC Josh took aim at Sports Illustrated's Andrew Perloff for his contention that the Cincinnati Bengals aren't for real because most of their victories have come against bad teams. I completely agree with everything Josh wrote, except for one thing: his headline. In calling the easy schedule argument "flawed," he passes up an opportunity to expose the fundamental misunderstanding involved in Perloff's comments.
What do I mean? Just this: consistently beating bad teams is precisely what good teams do.
Let's take a stroll over to Cold Hard Football Facts. They're doing the paywall thing this year so their 2011 "Quality Standings" aren't available, but last year's (and 2009's) will do to show you what I mean. The site's Quality Standings track teams' records against opponents who have winning records, and what they show is that even the best teams are somewhere around .500 against other good teams. There are exceptions, like the 2010 Patriots, but for the most part, making the playoffs isn't about beating the good teams regularly. It's about gorging on your schedule's turkeys.
Take last year's Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers teams. Both finished 12-4 and made the postseason. But they didn't get there by beating the good teams. Each played seven games against teams that ended the regular season with winning records. Baltimore went 4-3 in those games, and Pittsburgh was a losing 3-4. However, against teams that finished 7-9 or worse, they were 8-1 and 9-0 respectively.
Of course, you never hear anyone talk about soft schedules when it comes to teams like Baltimore or Pittsburgh. It only happens in situations like this years' Bengals, when a team that was expected to be bad, or has traditionally not won suddenly racks up some wins. When that happens, it's a "soft schedule." When the Steelers or Ravens do it, it's "taking care of business." And that's the fundamental misunderstanding I'm talking about: winning against a "soft schedule" and "taking care of business" are the same thing.
Right now, the Bengals are .500 against "quality" teams and 4-1 against the gobblers. That's taking care of business. And taking care of business is what good teams do.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Caption: ~Ha Ha Ha Ha Stayin' Alive Stayin' Alive~
"When you see it open up and all you can see is the end zone, it’s hard to describe how relieving it feels." -Ced Benson
by ItsAlwaysSunnyInDayton on Nov 1, 2011 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Didn't everyone have us picked to finish last even after they knew the schedule anyway?
"When you see it open up and all you can see is the end zone, it’s hard to describe how relieving it feels." -Ced Benson
by ItsAlwaysSunnyInDayton on Nov 1, 2011 11:45 AM EDT reply actions
Excellent point.
According to – well – EVERYONE, we were team #33. That is how horrible we “are”.
But somehow now there are 5 teams that are now worse? No wait. Make that 23 teams much worse than us. We just stayed the same I guess. It’s not you, it’s them.
Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
What a CLOWN!
Who is this author anyway!? A true NO NAME it sounds like to me. What a clown. This dude actually took the time to write a crazy article like this one posted above. Hey dude do you have anything positive to say at all!? Anything? Where ur just plain nuts at is when you made an ignorrant statement saying anymore then 5 to 6 wins by the Bengals is stretching it! Bottom line is we are winning. FACT: anytime a AFC NORTH team plays each other its all in and it is anyones game to win. Im looking at 10 plus wins. AT LEAST 10. I tell you what I will go ahead and copy this and re post it so you can read it in December. Clown boy. You embarrass yourself when you write crap like that. We will see. WHODEY!
What?
It must be inordinately taxing to be such a boob. ~ The Brain
I wonder if it's supposed to be on the other article
that Josh “took aim at Sports Illustrated’s Andrew Perloff”
by Oregonbengalsfan on Nov 1, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
RE:
I just ripped Andrew for using a “weak schedule” argument against Cincinnati.
No one really knows where this rant is coming from. LOL!
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 1, 2011 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I didn't word that exactly right
I was thinking maybe he was taking his own shot at Andrew Perloff
by Oregonbengalsfan on Nov 1, 2011 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
This rant is amazing. Thank you for the laugh.
"I slyde my boehner into sexsalad...."
Sounds like a johnu1 production. --jch24
by GrooveLeg on Nov 1, 2011 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Did you read the article? WTF
And the Bengals are beating the teams they should, the road win in Seattle is especially good. But they haven’t proven to me they can win 10 games until that running game improves.
It's a statistical likelihood
most teams with a +500 record will have faced a combined sub 500 record schedule.
Assume there are 5 total teams that play 16 games, 4 each against all the other squads. All are at .500. and their strength of schedule is also at .500.
A) 8-8 32-32
B) 8-8 32-32
C) 8-8 32-32
D) 8-8 32-32
E) 8-8 32-32
Now, assume one of those teams plays 500 against all teams except one, which it dominates.
The combined record of A’s opponents is now 30-34 instead of 32-32.
A) 10-6 30-34
B) 8-8 32-32
C) 8-8 32-32
D) 8-8 32-32
E) 6-10 34-30
If one of the other teams has a 3-1 advantage over that terrible team:
A) 10-6 30-34
B) 9-7 30-34
C) 8-8 32-32
D) 8-8 32-32
E) 5-11 36-28
The NFL, of course, doesn’t have a purely balanced schedule, so it isn’t as neat and tidy as it appears in my scenario. It’s a bit closer to one division if all the external plays were balanced, I guess. But, I hope, it gives a small insight to a weakness of just judging based on the strength of schedule without actually considering the the quality of the teams played.
The Jets were 7-7 or so a couple years back after battling the Patriots and some other tough games through the year. Ended up 9-7 and on the cusp of the superbowl. Rookie QB. Team in flux, it seemed. Solid D, though.
Steelers about 7 years ago… rookie QB, team in flux… Solid D, though.
"Suck for Luck"? Forget that
2010 was "Schemin’ for Green and Faultin’ for Dalton."
x
A) 10-6 30-34
B) 9-7 31-33
C) 8-8 32-32
D) 8-8 32-32
E) 5-11 36-28
"Suck for Luck"? Forget that
2010 was "Schemin’ for Green and Faultin’ for Dalton."
Given 2010 was one of the toughest schedules
in the league, having one of the easiest in 2011 is just how the NFL rolls. I never anticipated the way the Bengals would improve during September and October and having to play some awful teams has been a huge benefit when there was no off season. The rookies and second year guys have had 7 games to learn the NFL way, now they are ready for the hard part of the schedule, which is always division play. I doubt they will be 5-2 over the next 7 games, but this won’t be a reprise of 0-9.
The Bengals have also stayed healthy over the start of the season, not having to dig deep into the reserves is one other reason the season has gone so well.
Whole-heartedly agree
One of the things over-looked every year in the last to first scenario is SOS. The fourth place team in a good division has an advantage in that they play the worst teams from 2 other divisions, while the best team plays the best team from those divisions, otherwise the schedule is the same. I told a friend of mine last year when the Buccaneer were facing similar criticism, good teams beat bad teams, thats what maks a good team, and it still holds true.
It must be inordinately taxing to be such a boob. ~ The Brain
Football Outsiders...
Football Outsiders has been saying something similar for years. Stomps (games where a team blows out an inferior opponent) are much more predictive of a teams overall talent than Guts (close games between evenly matched teams). The closer a games is, the more likely it is that said game may be decided by a lucky bounce of the ball or a blown call by the official.
by blotzphoto on Nov 1, 2011 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Bengals players should embrace this too
If they are aware that they have been beating mediocre talent, then they should be prepared for a step-up when they play the Ravens & Steelers
Hi fans it Brandon Roy.
And ME.....LaMarcus Aldridge
Holy crapsicle!
Excellent stats to back your point! The Steelers have always chewed up the bottom feeders, but I never payed so much attention to their record against winners. Stats like this give Dalton and the Bengals a legit shot of reenacting Flacco and Pig Pen’s rookie success!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
