ESPN's Top 5 Overperforming Teams

Thought ESPN would have some nice things to say about the Bengal's surprising 2011 season... Nope, another FAIL by the biased ESPN. I get Denver and San Fran, but Pitt, Tenn, and Oaklans?!?! C'mon man!!

4 months ago WhoDeyTim 6 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Are you kidding me?

This is GOOD that we were NOT on their list.

This means they think we were actually decent. Sure we got injured and fell apart late, but we were decent even then, and pretty good at the start of the year.

By not putting us on the list we are not being called “lucky” to win 9 games. And that’s good.

by FriarBob on Jan 25, 2012 12:48 PM EST reply actions

I see your point, and tend to agree

However, I understood the article to be about teams that weren’t expected to do anything great in 2011 and then came out of nowhere to “overperform” the preseason expectations. In reading the article in more detail though, the “overperforming” is based on the team’s efficiency numbers and basing those numberss on how they should have finished. I’m guessing the Bengal’s efficiency numbers had them around 8 or 9 wins

by WhoDeyTim on Jan 25, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah well I’m not an insider so I can’t read the rest of the article, but the basic premise in the teaser seems that you’re right. They don’t really think Denver or San Fran should really have won 9 or 13 games. I rather agree on both.

by FriarBob on Jan 25, 2012 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

Pitt gets a wildcard (not the division title) and overperforms?

Huh?

The amount of liquor I drank last night would've killed a small-to-medium sized Asian family.

by balooko31 on Jan 25, 2012 3:27 PM EST reply actions

As old and slow as their defense looked at the start of the season, and as beat to hell as their defense was by the end of it, yeah, they overperformed. Not by much, but enough. They really should have only won about 9 or 10 games, not 12.

by FriarBob on Jan 25, 2012 4:32 PM EST up reply actions