It might not make much difference in our record this year, but last season we were one of the unluckiest teams in quite some time. Lots of bad teams lose lots of close games. That is why they have bad records, but even bad teams often manage to win a close game. Last year the Bengals lost 6 one-score games and did not win a single one. They were only the third team in the last 30 years to do that. I don't know who the other two teams were because I am just quoting this stat from Footballoutsiders.

Obviously you can't count on luck to improve a teams record, but the truth is that since so many NFL games are decided by one score or less luck does come into play a lot. For example stats have shown that recovering fumbles is based on random chance instead of skill. There is no consistency in fumble recovery stats to show that one team is bette than others. A team that leads the league in percentage of fumble recoveries one year is just as likely to finish last the next year as first.

And based on the statistical rule of "regression to the mean" we are due for some better luck this year.

So can I get a four leaf clover and a "WHO-DEY!"

(07-27-2020, 08:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Last year the Bengals lost 6 one-score games and did not win a single one.

I can’t argue with logic like that Fred... hahaha

(07-27-2020, 08:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Last year the Bengals lost 6 one-score games and did not win a single one. 

We also lost 2 games where we outgained the opposing team by over a 100 yards. Last season was a weird year but it happened for the best.

This isnt very hard to understand.

The reason we sucked last year was because Dalton was awful when it mattered.

3rd Quarter Rating: 68
4th Quarter Rating: 77

3rd down and 4-6 yards to go: 25 for 56, 1 TD and 40 Passer Rating

Greater than 2.5 Seconds in a clean pocket: 80 rating (That is so awful, it's hard to comprehend)

On all 3rd Downs of any distance to go: 61.1 Rating

We were bad in close games cause we had one of the 2-3 worst QBs in the league. Not hard to comprehend.

(07-27-2020, 08:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It might not make much difference in our record this year, but last season we were one of the unluckiest teams in quite some time.  Lots of bad teams lose lots of close games.  That is why they have bad records, but even bad teams often manage to win a close game.  Last year the Bengals lost 6 one-score games and did not win a single one.  They were only the third team in the last 30 years to do that.  I don't know who the other two teams were because I am just quoting this stat from Footballoutsiders.

Obviously you can't count on luck to improve a teams record, but the truth is that since so many NFL games are decided by one score or less luck does come into play a lot.  For example stats have shown that recovering fumbles is based on random chance instead of skill.   There is no consistency in fumble recovery stats to show that one team is bette than others.  A team that leads the league in percentage of fumble recoveries one year is just as likely to finish last the next year as first.

And based on the statistical rule of "regression to the mean" we are due for some better luck this year.

So can I get a four leaf clover and a "WHO-DEY!"

In summary: We lost 14 games last year because we sucked. And we did indeed lose all 14 of them and did not win a single one.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

Vs the North in their 5 losses the Bengals lost by a average of 16 pts a game.
That to me last year said this team was way over matched on both sides of the ball.
If it was for Brandon Wilson KO for a TD it would have been worse margin wise.

The Bengals played the 2nd and 3rd tier teams a bit closer i.e the Bills Cards
But upper tier teams totally dominated the Bengals i.e 49ers Pats

Its,really imperative these 2nd and 3rd players really get the that next level.
Not just be good players but great players
How,do the Bengals unlock that?

(07-27-2020, 02:20 PM)OrangeTerrain Wrote: This isnt very hard to understand.

The reason we sucked last year was because Dalton was awful when it mattered.

3rd Quarter Rating:  68
4th Quarter Rating:  77  

3rd down and 4-6 yards to go:  25 for 56, 1 TD and 40 Passer Rating

Greater than 2.5 Seconds in a clean pocket: 80 rating (That is so awful, it's hard to comprehend)

On all 3rd Downs of any distance to go: 61.1 Rating

We were bad in close games cause we had one of the 2-3 worst QBs in the league.  Not hard to comprehend.

Right, had NOTHING to do with the 29th ranked defense and 25th ranked running game.

(07-27-2020, 02:32 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Luck had nothing to do with it.

People who think luck plays no part in who wins a football game doesn't understand football.

(07-27-2020, 01:47 PM)J24 Wrote: We also lost 2 games where we outgained the opposing team by over a 100 yards. Last season was a weird year but it happened for the best.

30th in Red Zone efficiency will do that to a team. Get better in the Red Zone and we will see more wins.

This makes me think of 09 and 2010 when we won a bunch of close games and then lost a bunch of close games. Losing close games is better than getting blown out, but ida know...didn't the Browns last year lose a number of close games?

Close games!

(07-27-2020, 08:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It might not make much difference in our record this year, but last season we were one of the unluckiest teams in quite some time.  Lots of bad teams lose lots of close games.  That is why they have bad records, but even bad teams often manage to win a close game.  Last year the Bengals lost 6 one-score games and did not win a single one.  They were only the third team in the last 30 years to do that.  I don't know who the other two teams were because I am just quoting this stat from Footballoutsiders.

Obviously you can't count on luck to improve a teams record, but the truth is that since so many NFL games are decided by one score or less luck does come into play a lot.  For example stats have shown that recovering fumbles is based on random chance instead of skill.   There is no consistency in fumble recovery stats to show that one team is bette than others.  A team that leads the league in percentage of fumble recoveries one year is just as likely to finish last the next year as first.

And based on the statistical rule of "regression to the mean" we are due for some better luck this year.

So can I get a four leaf clover and a "WHO-DEY!"

Just proves to one and all how bad the coaching and play calling was last season.

That also means that the other 8 losses were by multiple scores. God is that ugly bad.

 

(07-27-2020, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People who think luck plays no part in who wins a football game doesn't understand football.

Yes, but it's all relative.  People often choose to remember bad luck over good luck. 

Similar to that famous line about poker (paraphrased), "people can remember all their bad beats in great detail, but rarely remember all the luck involved in them building a stack."

The fact of the matter is, when it's all said and done, luck tends to even itself out.  At some point the law averages come into play and you're left with a fairly accurate measurement of your skill level.

But is it bad luck? If we won a few of those would we have Joe Burrow right now? I'd say it was very good luck we lost those games last year to set us up perfect in the draft.

Here are some "close games" we were invloved in, delved into further to paint a better picture of "luck".



Arizona (Final - 26-23)

-Down 23-9 with only 7 minutes left.
-Allowed 266 yards rushing.
-Forced zero turnovers. (Lost turnover battle)
-Only 374 yards to their 514

Baltimore (Final - 23-17)

-Down 23-10 with only 3 mintues left.
-Allowed 269 yards rushing.
-Only 250 yards of offense to their 497. (2:1)
-Time of possession - 20:18 to 39.42 (2:1)

Oakland (Final - 17-10)

-16 first downs to their 20
-246 yards to their 386
-Time of possession 24:38 to their 35:22

Miami (Final - 38-35)

-Down 35-12 with 11 minuntes left.
-Had to score 3 TD's, coupled with an onsides recovery in the last 6 minutes, to force OT. (We were the lucky ones)
-Allowed Ryan Fitzpatrick to throw for 419 yards and 4 TD's. (Please read this line twice)
-Allowed over 500 yards of offense.
-Miami had more yards, more first downs, more time of possession
-Miami had less penalties, and allowed less sacks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you look at the final scores of some of these games it's real easy just to point to a final score and pretend like luck prevented us from pulling a few of these games out. It's easy to just to look at these finals and think we were so close. But when you dig deeper, or when remember the game, some of these weren't as close as they appear.

The first Baltimore game is a perfect example of this. They basically ran a bend don't break D and allowed us to march down the field, where he ultimately scored at a meaningless time (1 minute remaining). They completely dominated that game.

(07-27-2020, 04:47 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Here are some "close games" we were invloved in, delved into further to paint a better picture of "luck".



Arizona (Final - 26-23)

-Down 23-9 with only 7 minutes left.
-Allowed 266 yards rushing.
-Forced zero turnovers. (Lost turnover battle)
-Only 374 yards  to their 514

Baltimore (Final - 23-17)

-Down 23-10 with only 3 mintues left.
-Allowed 269 yards rushing.
-Only 250 yards of offense to their 497. (2:1)
-Time of possession - 20:18 to 39.42 (2:1)

Oakland (Final - 17-10)

-16 first downs to their 20
-246 yards to their 386
-Time of possession 24:38 to their 35:22

Miami (Final - 38-35)

-Down 35-12 with 11 minuntes left.
-Had to score 3 TD's, coupled with an onsides recovery in the last 6 minutes, to force OT. (We were the lucky ones)
-Allowed Ryan Fotzpatrick throw for 419 yards and 4 TD's. (Please read this line twice)
-Allowed over 500 yards of offense.
-Miami had more yards, more first downs, more time of possession
-Miami had less penalties, and allowed less sacks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you look at the final scores of some of these games it's real easy just to point to a final score and pretend like luck prevented us from pulling a few of these games out.  It's easy to just to look at these finals and think we were so close.  But when you dig deeper, or when remember the game, some of these weren't as close as they appear.

The first Baltimore game is a perfect example of this.  They basically ran a bend don't break D and allowed us to march down the field, where he ultimately scored at a meaningless time (1 minute remaining).  They completely dominated that game.

Yep, I started to bring this very thing up but just have no desire to argue.

Fact is we were just bad, period.

(07-27-2020, 04:47 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Here are some "close games" we were invloved in, delved into further to paint a better picture of "luck".



Arizona (Final - 26-23)

-Down 23-9 with only 7 minutes left.
-Allowed 266 yards rushing.
-Forced zero turnovers. (Lost turnover battle)
-Only 374 yards to their 514

Baltimore (Final - 23-17)

-Down 23-10 with only 3 mintues left.
-Allowed 269 yards rushing.
-Only 250 yards of offense to their 497. (2:1)
-Time of possession - 20:18 to 39.42 (2:1)

Oakland (Final - 17-10)

-16 first downs to their 20
-246 yards to their 386
-Time of possession 24:38 to their 35:22

Miami (Final - 38-35)

-Down 35-12 with 11 minuntes left.
-Had to score 3 TD's, coupled with an onsides recovery in the last 6 minutes, to force OT. (We were the lucky ones)
-Allowed Ryan Fotzpatrick throw for 419 yards and 4 TD's. (Please read this line twice)
-Allowed over 500 yards of offense.
-Miami had more yards, more first downs, more time of possession
-Miami had less penalties, and allowed less sacks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you look at the final scores of some of these games it's real easy just to point to a final score and pretend like luck prevented us from pulling a few of these games out. It's easy to just to look at these finals and think we were so close. But when you dig deeper, or when remember the game, some of these weren't as close as they appear.

The first Baltimore game is a perfect example of this. They basically ran a bend don't break D and allowed us to march down the field, where he ultimately scored at a meaningless time (1 minute remaining). They completely dominated that game.

But this completely obliterates the OPs delusional post!

How dare you! Lol. Good post

(07-27-2020, 04:23 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The fact of the matter is, when it's all said and done, luck tends to even itself out.  At some point the law averages come into play and you're left with a fairly accurate measurement of your skill level.

Yes, over multiple seasons.  The law of averages.  Regression to the mean. The team with the best luck one season probably won't have it the next year.  Same goes for the team with the worst luck.

Considering only 2 other teams in the last 30 years did as bad as we did last year in one score games I am saying we are due for some better luck in 2020.

We lost to Pittsbugh in the first game 27-3, in an embarrassing loss. In the 2nd game we only lost 16-10.

It would be easy to look just at the final score and come away with either, or both, of these thoughts: 1.) We greatly improved. 2.) If we just had some more luck we could/should have pulled that out

Here's what a box score and a perception of being "so close" doesn't tell you:

-They were forced to play their backup QB's.
-They were missing James Connor (RB1)
-They were missing Juju Smith-Schuster (WR1)
-They were missing Marquis Pouncy (Best Center in NFL)

Now obviously we were missing AJ, and we had our share of injuries too. But you can't deny that we were facing a severely injury happered team. When you're missing your #1 QB, RB, WR, andyour best OL that's going to cause a world of hurt. But those are breaks in this league I guess. Still, we faced a much different team than we did early in the season.

Now let's see how close we were in the matchup against the wounded Squeelers.

-They had more first downs (16-10).
-They had more yards (338-244).
-They had more passing yards (179-158).
-They had more rushing yards (159-86)
-They were better on 3rd down (5 of 16 to 2 of 12)
-They had more time of possession (34:40 to 25:20)
-They had more sacks (4 to 3)
-They forced more turnovers (2 to 1)
-They had less penalty yards (77 to 79)

So did we improve?

Again, I don't know how you could prove that as we faced an entirely different team in the 2nd game.

So we were "so close", or did luck prevent us from pulling out a win here?

They won out in pretty much every statistical category. We held the lead only once, at 10-7, for a grand total of 6 minutes. The other 54 minutes was spent either even or behind, and we were behind the entirity of the 4th quarter.

This is another "close" game where I can't see luck playing any factor in explaining our loss. This was basically their B Team, and we got them at home. And they proceeded to outperform us at every single level.

(07-27-2020, 06:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Considering only 2 other teams in the last 30 years did as bad as we did last year in one score games I am saying we are due for some better luck in 2020.

I really don't understand the argument you're trying to make here.  Had we beaten the Browns and Jets by less points, and only one score, we'd be considered "more lucky" using your criteria.  But because our two wins happened to come by more points then we're somehow less lucky in single score games?

It's all moot anyways, all that matters are wins and losses.  We lost 14 games.  We stunk.  We statistically measured well-below average in pretty much every single metric available.  There's nothing unlucky about any of this.