09-12-2015, 03:30 PM
(09-12-2015, 02:53 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: Your point is almost accurate, considering the turnover Oakland has. Given this, New England has made the playoffs 12 years out of the last 14 - so you're saying the past has no inclination for the future (then why follow statistics at all, what happened just a minute ago doesn't matter, you have no way to judge a player or team). Tom Brady is a constant, they will be in the playoffs again.Statistics show you game by game, season by season. They are a good way to see how a player or a team perform, I agree.
Continuity of a team matters, or it's just a random statistic. Example, Cleveland hasn't won their first game in over 10 years. They're just a bad team, but if they had continuity, you'd say they don't know how to prepare for the season opener. Example, if Dalton was 0-10 in playoff games, there would be a reason based on continuity, wouldn't there be?
I do agree history means nothing in this case (oakland, meh); though I remember reading something about how Cincy plays bad on the west coast for some reason (time difference, 4:30 games, etc), but if history doesn't matter, then that's an interesting way to watch sports lol.
Pats can make the playoffs, but also its the AFC East and yes they do have Tom Tom. Cleveland not winning a season opener is largely because yes they are bad most seasons. Still though, team history (not statistics) isn't relevant against any team. Players and coaches change, dynamics of the league adjust, etc. Otherwise it would be safe to make the assumption "the Bengals can't win an SB because they haven't won in 48 continuous seasons." And that's an absurd belief to enter a season with.
I heard about the time difference thing. But honestly it sounds like a poor excuse in this age of football, it's not like they are going all the way to London. But since 2011 I think this team has done better than expected, and better than what history has shown going out West.
