01-03-2016, 12:57 PM
(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.
