NFL: If you're scared say you're scared:

[CharlieK]

I agree with most of what you said, but how does what fans say, or have penciled in, have any impact whatsoever with the outcome of a game?


I completely understand the odds, but every year's team is different than the last. There's far too much turnover year to year to say that any team is affected by its past when it comes to putting it on the field (at least by the entire history of the franchise. Last year would obviously have slightly more credence.) The 11 Saints team in last year's situation likely wins. Not down to 4th and 5th string RB's and deep down the chart on a few defensive positions. But again, that's all speculation. Odds dont determine winners otherwise teams would never win the SB from the 6 seed. Also, when the Saints had never won a playoff game, I'm sure there were plenty saying the odds were with the defending SB champ Rams favor in that game. Bottom line, whoever gets on a roll and plays their best ball will likely take it. Thankfully, the games actually get played.

Basically I dont think history dictates outcomes in the NFL, especially when you look at the fact that the Saints won a Super Bowl. Trends only matter in a current season, IMO.

I agree....What teams with different players and different coaches did on the road years ago has no bearing on what happens now.....it's irrelevant. I don't think any statistical consclusion can be drawn from such a set of inputs. If forced to draw one I'd say it's a statistical oddity that the saints have a good home playoff record and are o fer on the road, and the more likely scennario is there road playoff record will start reverting to the mean, which would mean they would be more likely to win on the road this year.

However all of that is nonsense. The team that executes superior gameplans and avoids key injuries will win the superbowl, regardless of what 1990 Saints did.

[cajunhawk]

I agree....What teams with different players and different coaches did on the road years ago has no bearing on what happens now.....it's irrelevant. I don't think any statistical consclusion can be drawn from such a set of inputs. If forced to draw one I'd say it's a statistical oddity that the saints have a good home playoff record and are o fer on the road, and the more likely scennario is there road playoff record will start reverting to the mean, which would mean they would be more likely to win on the road this year.

However all of that is nonsense. The team that executes superior gameplans and avoids key injuries will win the superbowl, regardless of what 1990 Saints did.

I guess that raises an interesting question...what is the statistical average of playoff appearances for the NFL as a whole calculated across 32 franchises. Granted the Saints might be on the low end...using 9 playoff seasons to come up with trend analysis over a 24 season period(Saints made playoffs first in 1987...all the way to 2010 is 24 seasons) should come up with a pretty good mean average.

[CharlieK]

I guess that raises an interesting question...what is the statistical average of playoff appearances for the NFL as a whole calculated across 32 franchises. Granted the Saints might be on the low end...using 9 playoff seasons to come up with trend analysis over a 24 season period(Saints made playoffs first in 1987...all the way to 2010 is 24 seasons) should come up with a pretty good mean average.

Sorry I just think it's a fools errand. If you did the same analysis in the late Eighties or early 90's you'd swear the Raiders and Cowboys would have 8 superbowls each and be dominating the league.

If past performance of teams with different players meant anything no way the Cajuns go 9-4 and win a bowl game with a 50 yard field goal. What mattered was the coaching, the buy in from the players, the execution. And of course the black helmets. LOL.

[cajunhawk]

Sorry I just think it's a fools errand. If you did the same analysis in the late Eighties or early 90's you'd swear the Raiders and Cowboys would have 8 superbowls each and be dominating the league.

If past performance of teams with different players meant anything no way the Cajuns go 9-4 and win a bowl game with a 50 yard field goal. What mattered was the coaching, the buy in from the players, the execution. And of course the black helmets. LOL.

You would be correct if lets say I was trying to do the same with the Arizona Cardinals...who first made the playoffs in 1947 and tried to get a statistical average all the way to 2010 using their 8 playoff appearances. 9 years out of 24 is a very very representative sample, hell it's almost 40% of the sample size.

[CajunFan3406]

You would be correct if lets say I was trying to do the same with the Arizona Cardinals...who first made the playoffs in 1947 and tried to get a statistical average all the way to 2010 using their 8 playoff appearances. 9 years out of 24 is a very very representative sample, hell it's almost 40% of the sample size.

I think the point some people are trying to make is that, of that sample set, 5 of the years (87, 90, 91, 92, and 00) should have no bearing on this team because no player from those teams are playing for the Saints at this time. I would say sampling the post 2005 team would be the better gauge because many of those key skill players have been around since then. Statistics in sports is a funny thing because natural tendencies don't necessarily occur from one year to the next because of the frequency of changes in a team's roster.

[CharlieK]

You would be correct if lets say I was trying to do the same with the Arizona Cardinals...who first made the playoffs in 1947 and tried to get a statistical average all the way to 2010 using their 8 playoff appearances. 9 years out of 24 is a very very representative sample, hell it's almost 40% of the sample size.

I would agree if it was a sample of anything that was remotely consistant. But the saints of 2011 bear absolutley no resemblence to those of the early 90's. At least not in almost any of the ways that determine who wins or loses a football game. The GM, Coaches, and every player is different. You could use statistical trends maybe to compare teams coached by Sean Payton, or teams QB'd by Drew Brees, but again not enough road playoff games to draw any conclustions there. I guess what I am saying is that I just don't think those stats can tell us much about weather or not the saints will win a road playoff game because I don't think the uniform wins or loses football games, and besides the owner and the stadiium that's the only thing tying those previous generation teams to the current one.

Now I think they will struggle on the road against Green Bay, because Green Bay is good and there is a statistical advantage for home teams (SI had a good article about that a few months back, with speculation on why that is....mostly it seems to be due to human nature of the referees and not crowd noise or any of the usual suspects).

However I like the fact the Saints are peaking (have it together) at the right time I certainly wouldn't bet against them (if gambling were legal).

[cajunhawk]

I would agree if it was a sample of anything that was remotely consistant. But the saints of 2011 bear absolutley no resemblence to those of the early 90's. At least not in almost any of the ways that determine who wins or loses a football game. The GM, Coaches, and every player is different. You could use statistical trends maybe to compare teams coached by Sean Payton, or teams QB'd by Drew Brees, but again not enough road playoff games to draw any conclustions there. I guess what I am saying is that I just don't think those stats can tell us much about weather or not the saints will win a road playoff game because I don't think the uniform wins or loses football games, and besides the owner and the stadiium that's the only thing tying those previous generation teams to the current one.

Now I think they will struggle on the road against Green Bay, because Green Bay is good and there is a statistical advantage for home teams (SI had a good article about that a few months back, with speculation on why that is....mostly it seems to be due to human nature of the referees and not crowd noise or any of the usual suspects).

However I like the fact the Saints are peaking (have it together) at the right time I certainly wouldn't bet against them (if gambling were legal).

You said it yourself sampling just the Cowboys and Raiders for the 80's or early 90's would have 8 super bowls. So leaving out the 1980's and 1990's for the Saints shows not a very different picture...if you leave out the first 14 years then the trend analysis shows the Saints are almost unbeatable at home during the playoffs...still winless on the road during the playoffs. Whereas including the entire 24 year playoff history for the Saints shows they are a good team at home going 4-3 in the playoffs...still winless on the road in the playoffs. Not much change.

[CharlieK]

Statistics are dangerous things.....often misused, especially by politicians, investors, and gamblers.

[cajunhawk]

Statistics are dangerous things.....often misused, especially by politicians, investors, and gamblers.

I agree...but they are also helpful...like if you wanted to know the likelihood of a 16 seed winning a game in the NCAA men's Basketball Tournament...or how likely it is that the Buffalo Bills will win the Super Bowl. They are equally dangerous when ignored.

[CharlieK]

I agree...but they are also helpful...like if you wanted to know the likelihood of a 16 seed winning a game in the NCAA men's Basketball Tournament...or how likely it is that the Buffalo Bills will win the Super Bowl. They are equally dangerous when ignored.

didn't say they shouldn't be used....just they are often misused....

If the buffalo bills make the superbowl next year, the four loses from the early 90's will tell you nothing. Now the first two or three from the early 90's sure told you what was likely to happen in the fourth....for the counter arguement though, I present you the Denver Broncos.....