The argument of "Playoff Teams"

[Butchie Tiger]

Good teams don't always make the playoffs but good teams usually win in the playoffs

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-02-2016, 02:15 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: And if they are truly that bad, then they should have zero wins, but that has happened only once in a 16 game season, just as there has been only one team to get through 16 games without a loss.

Yes, there are teams who are on the top end of the spectrum of overall talent of the players and coaches, as well as teams on the bottom end of the spectrum.  But, as has already been stated, the spectrum isn't very wide in the NFL.  If it could be quantified, the spectrum would be a mile long in high school, a few hundered yards long in college, and only one  foot long in the NFL.

While I understand what you're saying I have to say I disagree. If the Bengals went 3-12 like the Browns are right now I highly doubt you'd be saying that the Bengals aren't a bad team. A team doesn't have to go 0-16 to be bad. Going winless in a season is actually very unlikely to happen in almost any sport because there are always other teams that are just as bad and one of them has to win regardless of who's worse.

[2MinutesHate]

(01-02-2016, 01:16 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Vicious cycle of 5 straight playoff teams started with a rookie QB? What is vicious about that exactly? I would take 5 more playoffs (10 in a row as I believe it would be a NFL record) with odds we will start winning playoff games. No playoff game and no hope of winning one is not an option I want in the future.

I DO believe that the Bengals can make it to the playoffs with a different coach.  I do not believe that the team would regress in Marvin's absence unless of course he actually the unknown GM of the team.  I think we'd miss his eye for talent.  It's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Playoffs really don't matter if you never win.  It's merely 1 extra game to watch.

[BengalChris]

(01-02-2016, 01:16 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Vicious cycle of 5 straight playoff teams started with a rookie QB? What is vicious about that exactly? I would take 5 more playoffs (10 in a row as I believe it would be a NFL record) with odds we will start winning playoff games. No playoff game and no hope of winning one is not an option I want in the future.

Five straight playoff appearances is a step up for this team and far better than not making it in. Agree that if you don't get in then you have no chance at all.

Four one and done's means those teams are at the bottom of the playoff teams. Now it's time for the next step to be taken, whether it's McCarron or Dalton I don't care, but whoever it's going to be, that QB needs to play well enough for us to win. A key ingredient that was missing the last 4 years, along with the rest of the team playing well.

[Essex Johnson]

(01-02-2016, 12:16 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: How am I totally missing it? The Bengals loss to the Texans this season was BAD, plain and simple. I'm not saying good teams can't lose to bad teams, I'm saying the Bengals absolutely chocked in that game because we played bad not because the Texans were good. People want to say we lost to the Texans because "They are a playoff team" when that didn't even matter at that point because it was only week 10, nor does it matter now. 

The Bengals were 8-0 and the Texans were 3-5. We came into the game averaging 28 points a game, which is equivalent to 4 touchdowns a game. The Texans came into the game with opposing teams scoring an average of 25 points a game on them, which is equivalent to at least three touchdowns a game. We were at home, they were not. We were ranked 2nd in Power Rankings that week, they were ranked 27th. They lost their starting quarterback in the 3rd quarter, we had ours the entire game. They came into the game with the worst red zone defense in the AFC and somehow all we scored were two field goals on them. If you can't see how that was a bad loss I don't know what to tell you. Oh and I know I already said it, but I'll say it again. We were at home.

The point you are missing is the Bengals are no different than Patriots, Steelers, Jets, KC, etc.. they have all lost to a team they should have beat.. what the hell are power rankings ?? a piece of paper.. the Ravens were ranked in top 10 when they were like 1-3.. who cares about power rankings.. the power is who is able over  16 GAME SEASON. win the most games.. the Bengals are headed for 12-4 hopefully.. the Steelers could go 10-6 and not make the playoffss.. why  they lost twice to the Ravens..  you guys act like lossing to the Texans is worse than other bad losses.. ie NE to Philly or Pitt to Baltimore.. etc.. makes no sense.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-02-2016, 09:39 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: The point you are missing is the Bengals are no different than Patriots, Steelers, Jets, KC, etc.. they have all lost to a team they should have beat.. what the hell are power rankings ?? a piece of paper.. the Ravens were ranked in top 10 when they were like 1-3.. who cares about power rankings.. the power is who is able over  16 GAME SEASON. win the most games.. the Bengals are headed for 12-4 hopefully.. the Steelers could go 10-6 and not make the playoffss.. why  they lost twice to the Ravens..  you guys act like lossing to the Texans is worse than other bad losses.. ie NE to Philly or Pitt to Baltimore.. etc.. makes no sense.

First of all, I never said the Bengals losing to the Texans is worse than other teams losing to teams they should beat. I said the Bengals loss to the Texans was bad for reasons I stated above which you seemed to completely ignore besides the Power Ranking stat. People are trying to say the Texans loss wasn't that bad because "They're a playoff team" when that argument holds very little weight. If you want to sit here and act like the Patriots losing to the Eagles or Pittsburgh losing to Baltimore was as bad as the Bengals losing to the Texans, then please present some facts to back up your claims.

Even if those losses were just as bad, you're still completely missing the point. Again, I never said good teams can't lose to bad teams, or that the Bengals loss was worse than other teams losses against bad teams. What I'm taking issue with is the fact that people want to act like the loss wasn't bad because "They're a playoff team" or because "Other good teams have lost to bad teams" when none of that nullifies the fact that we had a bad loss to a bad team. Instead of trying to cover up bad losses by saying things like "That team is a playoff team" or "Other good teams have bad losses" people should just own up to the fact that when we play like that we can never win a game against any team whether they're good or bad.

[TexasorBusted]

(01-02-2016, 10:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: First of all, I never said the Bengals losing to the Texans is worse than other teams losing to teams they should beat. I said the Bengals loss to the Texans was bad for reasons I stated above which you seemed to completely ignore besides the Power Ranking stat. People are trying to say the Texans loss wasn't that bad because "They're a playoff team" when that argument holds very little weight. If you want to sit here and act like the Patriots losing to the Eagles or Pittsburgh losing to Baltimore was as bad as the Bengals losing to the Texans, then please present some facts to back up your claims.

Even if those losses were just as bad, you're still completely missing the point. Again, I never said good teams can't lose to bad teams, or that the Bengals loss was worse than other teams losses against bad teams. What I'm taking issue with is the fact that people want to act like the loss wasn't bad because "They're a playoff team" or because "Other good teams have lost to bad teams" when none of that nullifies the fact that we had a bad loss to a bad team. Instead of trying to cover up bad losses by saying things like "That team is a playoff team" or "Other good teams have bad losses" people should just own up to the fact that when we play like that we can never win a game against any team whether they're good or bad.

You twisted my arm. Let's call the Texans loss at home on MNF a bad loss to a bad team. Let's see how all of the other playoff teams handled their schedules:
Vikings lost to the 49ers in Week 1 on MNF.
Cardinals lost to the Rams at home in Week 4.
Panthers lost to the Falcons in Week 16.
Packers lost to the Lions at home in Week 10 and the Bears in Week 12 on TNF.
Seahawks lost to the Rams in Week 1 and the Rams again in Week 16.
Redskins lost at home to the Dolphins in Week 1 and Cowboys in Week 13 on MNF.
Bengals lost at home to the Texans in Week 10 on MNF.
Broncos lost at home to the Raiders in Week 14.
Patriots lost at home to the Eagles in Week 13.
Chiefs lost at home to the Bears in Week 5.
Texans lost to the Falcons in Week 4, Dolphins in Week 7 and Bills in Week 13.
Jets lost at home to the Eagles in Week 3, Raiders in Week 8, at home to the Bills in Week 10 and Texans in Week 11.
Steelers lost at to the Ravens in Week 4 and Ravens again in Week 16.

So every team in the playoffs plus Steelers has a bad loss by your definition. Not sure what you are getting at. We maybe talking past each other, but this feels like "Water is wet" type stuff. I never went through each teams' losses, but the Bengals stack up well in that department pretty well...

[Baby Hawk]

There may not be any bad teams, but I remember one local team that wasn't very good in the '90s.

[*Nately120*]

This is sort of cynical YET optimistic BUT I think we may have finally made the playoffs enough times in a row to luck into having an opposing QB totally melt down when he faces us. I predict Fitzpatrick comes to Cincy and throws 3 or more INTs and we win.

[Rhinocero23]

(01-01-2016, 11:16 PM)TexasorBusted Wrote: It's the NFL. The other teams get paid too. Parity is the ultimate goal of the league. The difference between being a good and bad team is pretty minimal. It's not like college football where there are true talent disparities. I would argue that the Bengals are the most talented team in the league, but they can still lose to "less talented" teams any given week. This is where injuries, character of the teams, leadership, coaching, preparation, etc come into play.

It's rare to see a team be favored by more than 14 points in Vegas for a reason. In college it's routine to see 28+ point spreads during the regular season, even in conference play.

This is spot on. Teams change throughout the season. The OP point is primarily a good team should not lose to a bad team. It maybe better stated that a team with a good record should not lose to a team with a poor record. That seems to be a logical statement however there are far too many variables for it to be that simple: scheme, matchups, familaraily the flu, a nagging injury, lack of motivation (playoffs already locked up) all will play a factor in "any given Sunday". 

You will have that "off game" like the Panthers did against the Falcons last week. The Panthers just two weeks ago dismantled the Falcons, it seemed this game should have been another walk in the park for them. I would say a series of factors (maybe some listed above) caused a lack of focus or attention to detail and because the talent level is so close the more motivated and focused team won the game. 

I think it is a very interesting point that the OP makes, but I find it more telling from a different vantage point. My question is not how many times do you lose to the "bad teams" it is how many times do you beat the "good teams". This is where our Bengals have not been as good as one might think. 

Since 2011 they have compiled a 16-16-1 record against teams with better than  a .500 record AT THE TIME OF THE GAME, 14-14 against the AFCN and 0-4 in the playoffs.

I look at it at the time of the game for exactly the reasond TexasorBusted stated. Take the KC game this year...they beat a 1-5 team that was not considered "good" nor did they have a good record. There are plenty on here that when the season ends will start talking about how the Bengals beat a "playoff" team in the  11-5 or 10-6 Chiefs as proof that the Bengals were really good. However they will give every excuse why they lost to teams with winning records at the time of the game (ARZ, DEN, PITT). This same group with then point to losses to the "playoff" teams like the Texans as more proof the team was good...SMFH! "Our only losses were to playoff teams...I am surprised we lost in the first round of the PLAYOFFS"...for real?

Is it surprising the Bengals have gone 0-4 in the playoffs given their record against winning teams. The Bengals are as someone pointed out in this thread the bottom tier of the playoff teams...for those glass 1/2 full types they are  "best of the worst" or better than the team of the 90's!

 In reality the Bengals have been  average against "good" teams with good records. My frustration is with the fool's gold that is presented with a  "5 years in a row in the playoffs" argument that is satisfactory to some fans and obviously the ownership. 


At the end of the day all that matters is #1 did you make the playoffs and #2 did you advance in the playoffs. By beating the teams that are not "good" you make it into the playoffs...by not beating the "good" teams you are going to exit said playoffs quickly.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-02-2016, 11:30 PM)TexasorBusted Wrote: You twisted my arm. Let's call the Texans loss at home on MNF a bad loss to a bad team. Let's see how all of the other playoff teams handled their schedules:
Vikings lost to the 49ers in Week 1 on MNF.
Cardinals lost to the Rams at home in Week 4.
Panthers lost to the Falcons in Week 16.
Packers lost to the Lions at home in Week 10 and the Bears in Week 12 on TNF.
Seahawks lost to the Rams in Week 1 and the Rams again in Week 16.
Redskins lost at home to the Dolphins in Week 1 and Cowboys in Week 13 on MNF.
Bengals lost at home to the Texans in Week 10 on MNF.
Broncos lost at home to the Raiders in Week 14.
Patriots lost at home to the Eagles in Week 13.
Chiefs lost at home to the Bears in Week 5.
Texans lost to the Falcons in Week 4, Dolphins in Week 7 and Bills in Week 13.
Jets lost at home to the Eagles in Week 3, Raiders in Week 8, at home to the Bills in Week 10 and Texans in Week 11.
Steelers lost at to the Ravens in Week 4 and Ravens again in Week 16.

So every team in the playoffs plus Steelers has a bad loss by your definition. Not sure what you are getting at. We maybe talking past each other, but this feels like "Water is wet" type stuff. I never went through each teams' losses, but the Bengals stack up well in that department pretty well...

By "my" definition? And what definition is that? I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying.

Again, I understand that good teams lose to bad teams, and I'm not denying that it happens. What I'm saying is that I take issue with people covering up the Texans loss by saying "We lost to a playoff team" when that is really just an excuse to ignore the fact that we played badly against a bad team, which shouldn't have happened. Yes, good teams do lose to bad teams, but good teams shouldn't go 4 quarters without scoring a touchdown against a bad team at home (assuming said team doesn't have key injuries etc...) It is actually very possible to play good against a bad team and still lose. Just because good teams lose against bad teams does not mean that all those losses were "bad" ones. The Bengals loss however was definitely a bad loss to a bad team.

(01-03-2016, 12:57 PM)Rhinocero23 Wrote:

Quote:This is spot on. Teams change throughout the season. The OP point is primarily a good team should not lose to a bad team. It maybe better stated that a team with a good record should not lose to a team with a poor record. That seems to be a logical statement however there are far too many variables for it to be that simple: scheme, matchups, familaraily the flu, a nagging injury, lack of motivation (playoffs already locked up) all will play a factor in "any given Sunday".

Well you are partly right that part of my point is that a good team shouldn't lose to a bad one (assuming there aren't variables that effect their play significantly such as key injuries etc..), but it is not my primary point here. My primary point is that Bengals fans and NFL fans in general should not be using the excuse that so many fans here are using that losing to the Texans somehow isn't a big deal because "They are a playoff team" or because "Other teams have lost to bad teams". Neither of those points is ever a good excuse for losing to anyone.

Quote:I look at it at the time of the game for exactly the reasond TexasorBusted stated. Take the KC game this year...they beat a 1-5 team that was not considered "good" nor did they have a good record. There are plenty on here that when the season ends will start talking about how the Bengals beat a "playoff" team in the  11-5 or 10-6 Chiefs as proof that the Bengals were really good. However they will give every excuse why they lost to teams with winning records at the time of the game (ARZ, DEN, PITT). This same group with then point to losses to the "playoff" teams like the Texans as more proof the team was good...SMFH! "Our only losses were to playoff teams...I am surprised we lost in the first round of the PLAYOFFS"...for real?

See, and this right here is exactly what I'm getting at.  People want to use the "Playoff team" argument as a way of legitimizing things when it's a very bad argument to make.

[TexasorBusted]

(01-04-2016, 03:09 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: By "my" definition? And what definition is that? I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying.

Again, I understand that good teams lose to bad teams, and I'm not denying that it happens. What I'm saying is that I take issue with people covering up the Texans loss by saying "We lost to a playoff team" when that is really just an excuse to ignore the fact that we played badly against a bad team, which shouldn't have happened. Yes, good teams do lose to bad teams, but good teams shouldn't go 4 quarters without scoring a touchdown against a bad team at home (assuming said team doesn't have key injuries etc...) It is actually very possible to play good against a bad team and still lose. Just because good teams lose against bad teams does not mean that all those losses were "bad" ones. The Bengals loss however was definitely a bad loss to a bad team.

I believe I understand what you are saying. I am willing to go along with the idea that the Texans are a bad team, was a bad loss and yet are a playoff team. The problem I have is that if you take a snapshot of every team's season in 2015, you will see a bad loss to a bad team. Again it feels like "Water is wet". What's the news with that? I don't get the point.

If you were arguing that the Bengals defense can't seem to end a half (see both halves and OT of Broncos game), then I am totally with you. I wouldn't trust the Bengals defense for one last stop in the playoffs. Hell, that defense couldn't stop TJ Yates off the bench and he was off the couch.

[Sovereign Nation]

(01-01-2016, 10:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm wondering how people feel about the argument of "playoff teams" as a way of legitimizing the Bengals season this year. One thing in particular that seems to be coming up around here in various arguments is the loss to the Houston Texans. Obviously there are fans divided on the argument. Some say the loss to them was a bad loss, others say it's not that bad of a loss because the Texans are a "Playoff team". I feel like this type of argument can be very misleading because it ignores two very important things.

First off.... just because a team goes to the playoffs does not mean that they are necessarily a "good" team. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for the NFL rule that a team from each division gets to go to the playoffs, then the Texans wouldn't even be in the playoffs right now. They would have been knocked out by the Steelers.... But since the Texans are the leader of their division right now they get to go to the playoffs as it currently stands. It's something that has been an issue with fans for a long time...

The 2010 NFL season is a great example of this actually because a lot of people complained about it. It's the same year that Marshawn Lynch ended up having his game saving Beast Mode touchdown against the Saints to win their playoff game. But the funny thing about it is that the Seahawks were only in the playoffs to begin with because of the technicality of the NFL rule regarding divisional winners. That year there were 3 other teams that had better records than the Seahawks, but the Seahawks got to go to the playoffs because they won their division with a 7-9 record. The three other teams that had better records than them that didn't get to go to the playoffs that year were the New York Giants/Tampa Bay Buccaneers (both 10-6) and the San Diego Chargers (9-7).

So does this mean that those teams weren't good because they didn't get to go to the playoffs but the 7-9 Seahawks did? Of course not, nor does it mean they're good teams vice versa. People need to stop looking at this as "Team (whoever) made it to the playoffs, so that means they're a good team/it wasn't a bad loss". There's so many variables you have to look at besides the fact that they made it to the playoffs.

A team can be good for a few weeks but then be terrible for the rest of the season. This means that just because a team beats the Patriots in week 2 or 3, doesn't mean that they are automatically a "good" team just as losing to the Patriots wouldn't make them a bad team either. They could be having a rough start, they could have injuries, they could have personnel issues etc... The main point is that you have to look at the meat and bones of the situation rather than just the outside of it, ie "They made it to the playoffs, thus they are a good team" or "They beat so and so that week, so that makes them the better team".  A team could make it to the playoffs and lose their starting quarterback and get lose their first playoff game. Does that mean they were a bad team? No, they lost their starting QB for crying out loud... Teams change throughout the season, coaches change throughout the season, injuries happen, bad ref calls happen, basically.... a lot happens throughout the season to determine who are the greats and who are the not so greats. Just look at the Kansas City Chiefs this year. They won their first game of the season against the Texans and then lost their next 5 straight and people were laughing at them. Then they rebounded and have now won their last 9 games. Does that make them a good team or not? I dunno, you tell me.

I get what you are saying but it isn't so simplistic.

The NFL is overflowing with talent and even the bad teams have good or even great players.

Not only that but there are many factors that go into every game that will dictate the outcome of the game, which is why you hear people say "on paper" when referring to a team winning.  Weather, individual efforts (both good and bad), referees, game plans and even shear dumb luck.  Yep sometimes the ball just happens to bounce a certain way.

For example, the Browns vs Ravens.  All statistics at the end of the game would have favored the Browns to win that game.  Sure the FG was a little long but it was still withing range of an NFL kicker.  With so little time left on the clock, this had the highest probability of a Brown victory, the range put gave it a less likely probability of OT, and the least likely probability of a blocked kicked returned for a TD.  We all know the outcome, but before hand it was a Browns victory.

Game plans are also a factor.  Mark Cuban ripped Skip Bayless for suggesting that Lebron James failure is why the Mavericks beat them in the NBA championship game.  His point was that Lebron played like Lebron, what the Mavs did was game plan to force Lebron to play a certain way.  The same thing with the NFL, the Patriots are known for shutting down what teams do best, so they game plan to force teams to play certain ways.  If a team is a good or great run team, then they will sell out to stop the run and force you to throw the ball.  If the team is great at passing, then they will force you to run the ball.  Even if you are a great passing team, you usually only need to take away 1 or 2 players to become only mediocre.  The Patriots would force us to run the ball or have to target Sanu or Jones.  Not only would they force us to either run or target lessor WRs, they will usually have a plan to make the players that we do have to target play in a way that they don't do so well with, IE get YAC, break to the outside, make the QB throw deep or even short.

Officiating.  Yep, it can be terrible and sometimes it can be beneficial.  Just depends on the team that is getting called for the penalty vs the team that isn't getting called or got the PI called.  Sometimes the timing of the call is what leads to the benefit.  A team can get every call to go their way, never get called once for PI or holding or even personal foul.  Yet on that last drive the flag comes out and it is a killer, so instead of a 4th down stop to seal the game it is now 1st and goal on the 1 yard line and they only need a FG to win.  Instead of converting that 4th and 1, a hold call now makes it 4th and 11.  As fans we only see the ones that hurt us more than the ones that help us.  We also see our hated rivals get more calls in their favor.

Individual effort.  Looking at the Texans game, it is plainly evident that the biggest surprise of having a down game was Eifert.  Would you or anyone else have thought that he would drop 3 passes and run the wrong route?  Green has had some fumbling issues late in the game, but he is still less likely to cough up the ball in that situation.  Even MLJ got into the act of not playing DB on the INT, he gave up on the ball and Joseph got the easy pick, however MLJ did make the tackle so he finished the play, but normally he prevents the INT but for some reason he didn't on that play.  There are plenty of reasons for this to occur.  Nerves, overconfidence, underestimating your opponent,  maybe Eifert got news (good or bad) that distracted him, maybe Green was thinking about making a big play even bigger by shaking off some tacklers and getting into the endzone, and maybe MLJ got blinded by the lights and lost track of the football.

Weather.  Face it, both teams have to play in the weather, but weather and field turf play a huge factor in winning or losing a game.  Having the rain come down harder against the Patriots sure assisted in us securing a win.  Likewise, Denver got the benefit of poor weather when they played NE this year.  The turning point in that game was the muffed punt, and the weather doesn't help someone trying to catch a freezing cold ball that is slick with the snow or moisture in the air.  This is part of the luck factor in the game.  However you can practice and game plan around the weather, even if it isn't a guarantee to be successful.  

So yes, "playoff team" can be misleading.  The Panthers have the best record in the NFL, and a lot of people think they are a good team because of it.  However, some factors that have helped them is the above as well as getting the AFC S, the NFC E and the NFC S, now I would say these are all NFL teams and that they could beat any team they face if all of the above factors go their way.  However, a few of the Panthers games had a few of the above go the Panthers way, which led to their record.  Compound that with playing teams that lack players that will give a consistent individual effort (OBJ, Matt Ryan) to teams that get flagged more often than others (Saints Defense) and shear dumb luck (Cowboys injuries) and that is a recipe for success.  Now if the Panthers had to play a team like the Steelers, Patriots and Seahawks and even our Bengals, then they wouldn't have been as successful as they have had this year.