Superbowl teams

[Southieinnc]

Ravens won the SuperBowl. Will they improve? Will they fall back? Fall back a little or a lot?
I think they win one game less, make the playoffs at 9-7 and get knocked out quickly.

The 49ers were the runner-ups. What usually happens to the SB loser? Yes, they are a good team but you have to wonder.... Kaep sophomore jinx? SB loser jinx? Injuries? Would anybody be surprised to see the 49ers go 10-6 and exit the playoffs quickly?

We know what the homers think. What do the rest of you think?

 

[NinerSickness]

I think the Ravens have improved from a talent standpoint. I think they're easily the most talented team in the AFC. Getting Webb back, getting Suggs at 100% and adding Dumervil is going to make that defense a HUGE pain in the ass. Losing their starting TE hurt a lot though.

The 49ers had the most talent of any NFL team last year IMO, but their biggest problem was depth on the DL and OLB. And both of those positions got his with injuries at the end of the year. Those problems have been addressed, and Kaepernick should be better with a whole offseason under Harbaugh getting first-string rep's. I still don't think he's as good as Joe Flacco, but he might be eventually. Objectively speaking, I don't see any reason why the 49ers shouldn't be the favourites in the NFC. Seattle is close IMO (I think the Giants are too), but they're going to be missing Percy Harvin, Bruce Irvin for their home game against the Niners, and I think it would've been really tough for them to win that game at full strength (even with Crabtree out).

And I'm the guy who was saying the 49ers didn't have much of a chance to win the SB in 2011 (when they went to the NFC Championship game). I knew great teams would shut Alex Smith down when it came time for him to either win the game or give it away (which he did by not being able to get a 1st down at the end of the game). I got a bunch of crap for it, but that's what I thought. With Kaepernick at QB, defenses can't cheat to the line of scrimmage any more. They're going to win games running the ball and controlling the clock because they can't keep the safety in the box every play any more.

The Niners & Ravens have amazing pass-rushes IMO, and that's the biggest reason I'm predicting a rematch of the Harbowl in February.

 

[Southieinnc]

I think the Ravens have improved........

The Niners & Ravens have amazing pass-rushes IMO, and that's the biggest reason I'm predicting a rematch of the Harbowl in February.

You could pick the eight teams to win their division by picking last years eight, that would give you 6 out of 8. Most here could take 7 of last years division winners and add their team and get 5 out of 8 right. Picking last years SB teams to be in the SB again? No offense but that would be a really stupid bet, regardless of the teams involved.
I expect the homer to say their team is going back. I think you are wanting to make the Ravens good enough to go back to justify your loss. IE: The ravens must be good, they beat the 9ers....Bad logic. IMHO

 

[Southieinnc]

I think the Ravens have improved........

The Niners & Ravens have amazing pass-rushes IMO, and that's the biggest reason I'm predicting a rematch of the Harbowl in February.

You could pick the eight teams to win their division by picking last years eight, that would give you 6 out of 8. Most here could take 7 of last years division winners and add their team and get 5 out of 8 right. Picking last years SB teams to be in the SB again? No offense but that would be a really stupid bet, regardless of the teams involved.
I expect the homer to say their team is going back. I think you are wanting to make the Ravens good enough to go back to justify your loss. IE: The ravens must be good, they beat the 9ers....Bad logic. IMHO

 

[RonBorges]

As much as it hurts to say, I still think the Ravens are the most dangerous team in the AFC.
Also, I attended the Pats/49ers game in Foxboro last year and was blown away by the pace, aggressiveness and confidence of the 49ers. I think the Harbaugh brothers are at the same level or beyond Bill Belichick. (Belichick, to me, has lost his all out agressiveness and mojo).

So, I think the 49ers and Ravens are still the teams to beat in their respective conference.

I know it's dumb to pick a repeat, but that is how I see it right now.

The only thing holding these two teams back is the injuries they may incur down the road.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Broncos is who I would pick for the AFC.

 

[NinerSickness]

You could pick the eight teams to win their division by picking last years eight, that would give you 6 out of 8. Most here could take 7 of last years division winners and add their team and get 5 out of 8 right. Picking last years SB teams to be in the SB again? No offense but that would be a really stupid bet, regardless of the teams involved.
I expect the homer to say their team is going back. I think you are wanting to make the Ravens good enough to go back to justify your loss. IE: The ravens must be good, they beat the 9ers....Bad logic. IMHO

There are a few huge fallacies with this post.

1. It would be a "stupid" bet to pick any 2 teams to go to the SB not just the two from the prior year. However, the two from the prior year have just as high / low a chance of returning as any 2 playoff teams picked at random (probably higher). This mentality just shows you don't know a lot about odds & betting. Say you bet #7 in roulette and you win. Say you let your winnings ride on #7 again. Someone might say, "That's a stupid bet! What are the odds of you hitting a 7 2 times in a row?" The answer is: exactly the same odds as hitting any other number.

Now football isn't random bouncing (except with fumbles & injuries to a large extent), but the premise applies. I'm just picking the best rosters / coaching staffs from each conference.

2. I am the last person who should ever be accused of being a homer.

3. I couldn't care less about "justifying" a loss. It wouldn't make me feel better to have lost to a great team; it still wouldn't add a trophy to the case.

The Patriots had the offseason from hell. The Broncos gave one of their best players to the Ravens (Dumervil). Webb is coming back from injury. I don't have a dog in the fight for the AFC representative; I just think teams aren't going to be able to pass against them. Same with the Niners. They fixed the depth problem on the DL & at OLB, so Aldon & Justin Smith don't wear down (and get injured like they did at the end of the season). The biggest problem is WR, but the fact that they added Boldin goes a long way to making that problem not as big. I have a ton of faith in OC Greg Roman (who will be gone as a HC soon IMO). And they hired Mangini to be an offensive consultant to come up with ways to exploit defenses. I'm being completely objective: the team is LOADED. Best OL in the NFL, and Kaepernick will have an entire offseason getting first-string rep's.

Could Seattle (or the Giants IMO) take it? Sure. But I think the Niners have a bit more in the tank than they do.

 

[Southieinnc]

There are a few huge fallacies with this post.

1. It would be a "stupid" bet to pick any 2 teams to go to the SB not just the two from the prior year. However, the two from the prior year have just as high / low a chance of returning as any 2 playoff teams picked at random (probably higher). This mentality just shows you don't know a lot about odds & betting. Say you bet #7 in roulette and you win. Say you let your winnings ride on #7 again. Someone might say, "That's a stupid bet! What are the odds of you hitting a 7 2 times in a row?" The answer is: exactly the same odds as hitting any other number.

Now football isn't random bouncing (except with fumbles & injuries to a large extent), but the premise applies. I'm just picking the best rosters / coaching staffs from each conference.

2. I am the last person who should ever be accused of being a homer.

3. I couldn't care less about "justifying" a loss. It wouldn't make me feel better to have lost to a great team; it still wouldn't add a trophy to the case.


Could Seattle (or the Giants IMO) take it? Sure. But I think the Niners have a bit more in the tank than they do.

1) Is disagree that the odds for 2 teams returning are the same as any other, precisely because it is not random. Things have and will continue to change.

2) I was not calling YOU a homer. I am certainly not one who can throw that rock.

3) You ARE human.

You are a reasonable person entiltled to your opinion. I have no beef with you disagreeing with me.

 

[NinerSickness]

1) Is disagree that the odds for 2 teams returning are the same as any other, precisely because it is not random. Things have and will continue to change.

2) I was not calling YOU a homer. I am certainly not one who can throw that rock.

3) You ARE human.

You are a reasonable person entiltled to your opinion. I have no beef with you disagreeing with me.

I'll just address #1 then. Past occurrences have no bearing in predicting future outcomes if something is random. That's just a fundamental law of odds. But if you want to look at history:

It took 28 years for a repeat of a Super Bowl to occur. There are 36 possible outcomes for a SB if you're just picking teams who made the playoffs the year before, and there's no guarantee 2 teams who made the SB the previous year will go to the SB again. 1/28 > 1/36.

Also, there have been 92 teams in the SB after SB #1. 13 of those 92 teams were there the previous year. That's 14.13% of the time. 33 teams have made the SB without having made the playoffs the previous year. If you get 1/6 points per random playoff team pick for half the years and 1/5 points the other half, you'll end up with a 10.72% chance of picking a SB team at random just from the previous year's playoff teams.

14.13% > 10.72%.

So from a pure statistical sense, you're wrong about point #1. From a historical sense, you're wrong about point #1. I don't know what other way to look at it.

*Note: More teams have gone from no-playoffs to the SB in the 12-team format than in the 10-team format, so the 10.72% number is actually lower if I really wanted to be super-accurate.

 

[Southieinnc]

I'll just address #1 then. Past occurrences have no bearing in predicting future outcomes if something is random. That's just a fundamental law of odds. But if you want to look at history:

It took 28 years for a repeat of a Super Bowl to occur. There are 36 possible outcomes for a SB if you're just picking teams who made the playoffs the year before, and there's no guarantee 2 teams who made the SB the previous year will go to the SB again. 1/28 > 1/36.

Also, there have been 92 teams in the SB after SB #1. 13 of those 92 teams were there the previous year. That's 14.13% of the time. 33 teams have made the SB without having made the playoffs the previous year. If you get 1/6 points per random playoff team pick for half the years and 1/5 points the other half, you'll end up with a 10.72% chance of picking a SB team at random just from the previous year's playoff teams.

14.13% > 10.72%.

So from a pure statistical sense, you're wrong about point #1. From a historical sense, you're wrong about point #1. I don't know what other way to look at it.

*Note: More teams have gone from no-playoffs to the SB in the 12-team format than in the 10-team format, so the 10.72% number is actually lower if I really wanted to be super-accurate.

While we are talking about flaws, your "math" is only taking into account one team returning. I am talking about your expectation of BOTH teams returning to the SuperBowl.

In your defense, it has happened ONCE before (in 47 years) That is 2.1% as you say "looking at history"

Do the math for both teams returning and tell me you still believe that is a good bet.

 

[PATSOX08]

I'll go with Atlanta and Denver.

Atlanta: I see Seattle and San Frans QB's falling back to earth this coming season. Felt like Atlanta's playoff loss last year was more of their own doing than anything else. Think they are a better team this year.

Denver: At some point Peyton starts showing his age. Don't see it being this season though. Do they have a hangover from last seasons devastating playoff loss? I say no. Picking up Welker helps Denver more than it hurts New England, (Amendola). Losing two LB's might hurt their defense, but Peyton can play with the the clock as good as any QB in the league, and that benefits any defense. Had Ravens beat last year. Won't make the same mistake again. I see them going to the SB.

 

[NinerSickness]

While we are talking about flaws, your "math" is only taking into account one team returning. I am talking about your expectation of BOTH teams returning to the SuperBowl.

In your defense, it has happened ONCE before (in 47 years) That is 2.1% as you say "looking at history"

Do the math for both teams returning and tell me you still believe that is a good bet.

No, the first fraction 1/28 (should have been 1/27 because it took 27 years for a repeat Super Bowl to happen; I counted SB 1 by mistake). That takes into account both teams returning.

And saying there's a 1/47 chance because it's happened once is another example of how you're not understanding statistics and odds. Odds are based on how many times something happens ONE TIME out of how many times it takes for it to happen. You can't factor the Super Bowls from 29-47 in the denominator until there's a second occurrence of a repeat Super Bowl. Otherwise, the 1 in the 1/27 is skewed. Once you factor any Super Bowl after that, the 1 becomes a 1.05 or something because the odds don't all of a sudden double when there's a second repeat Super Bowl. So 1/27 VS 1/36 are accurate odds.

Also, by ignoring the odds of one team making it back to the Super Bowl, you're implying that one team making it back somehow lessens the odds of the other team making it back, and that violates a fundamental law of adds and statistics as well. One has nothing to do with the other (either statistically or logically).

You're going to have to concede this point because it's not an opinion; you're just wrong about this one.

 

[Clayton]

The big problem with picking the Ravens is that Joe Flacco is not always good Joe Flacco. He ranked 25th in QBR in the regular season last year. They honestly had no business being in the playoffs at all last year because they weren't healthy enough during the season. Football Outsiders had them ranked as the 13th most efficient offense and the 19th most efficient defense. Again, injuries. But they were lucky to be in the position to win a Super Bowl and got healthy at the right time.

So its not hard to conceive that they'll be better in the regular season than they were last year, but not as lucky, and finish with around the same record. But I don't think they'll be as good as the team that won the Super Bowl last year.

The Niners were abnormally healthy in 2011 and had to deal with a normal number of injuries in 2012 (Im assuming that the dline was banged up for the 2nd half of their run). I'm honestly too biased to say anything about them but Crabtree was big for them last year - for a change - and they'll be down a few other players. I don't think the Niners are better. But I'm not sure that eliminates the Niners from being a favorite.

 

[NinerSickness]

The big problem with picking the Ravens is that Joe Flacco is not always good Joe Flacco. He ranked 25th in QBR in the regular season last year.

Stop right there. QBR is a BS, largely arbitrary pseudo-statistic made up by ESPN to give themselves legitimacy. It's a load of crap. Nobody should ever cite QBR.

That said, Joe Flacco was (and historically has been) really good in the playoffs (like Eli Manning). That counts for a ton.

 

[Clayton]

Stop right there. QBR is a BS, largely arbitrary pseudo-statistic made up by ESPN to give themselves legitimacy. It's a load of crap. Nobody should ever cite QBR.

That said, Joe Flacco was (and historically has been) really good in the playoffs (like Eli Manning). That counts for a ton.

Jake Delhomme and Mark Sanchez were also really good in the playoffs. No one should ever site 'good in playoffs' as an argument when every NFL player is trying their hardest every game in a small season.

I used QBR but I could use other stats. Flacco was 12th in Quarterback rating behind Romo and Rivers. His DYAR and DVOA was 17th. He isn't the elite QB that he was in the playoffs last year. Just a decent one.

 

[NinerSickness]

Jake Delhomme and Mark Sanchez were also really good in the playoffs. No one should ever site 'good in playoffs' as an argument when every NFL player is trying their hardest every game in a small season.

I used QBR but I could use other stats. Flacco was 12th in Quarterback rating behind Romo and Rivers. His DYAR and DVOA was 17th. He isn't the elite QB that he was in the playoffs last year. Just a decent one.

Jake Delhomme & Mark Sanchez don't have the regular-season resume that Flacco & Eli do either.

12th in QB rating is pretty good, and that may be all he has to do to get back to the SB because the Pats are in shambles and the Broncos gave 'em Dumervil. Flacco may not be the best in the NFL, but the Ravens' defense might be top 2 or 3.

 

[Clayton]

Jake Delhomme & Mark Sanchez don't have the regular-season resume that Flacco & Eli do either.

12th in QB rating is pretty good, and that may be all he has to do to get back to the SB because the Pats are in shambles and the Broncos gave 'em Dumervil. Flacco may not be the best in the NFL, but the Ravens' defense might be top 2 or 3.

You're choosing to look at the good while choosing to ignore the bad. I hear there were some departures in Baltimore.

The Ravens are a contender just like the Broncos, Pats, Bengals and Texans + whatever sleeper decides to step up. If we are strictly looking at odds, the Texans and Broncos are better bets just because their divisions are easy. Although recent trends point to teams coming into the playoffs and getting hot at the right time.

 

[NinerSickness]

You're choosing to look at the good while choosing to ignore the bad. I hear there were some departures in Baltimore.

The Ravens are a contender just like the Broncos, Pats, Bengals and Texans + whatever sleeper decides to step up. If we are strictly looking at odds, the Texans and Broncos are better bets just because their divisions are easy.

I'm not ignoring the departures; I'm saying the arrivals out-weight the departures from a personnel standpoint. Losing Pitta will hurt a lot, but I think they're gaining enough on defense (Webb, Dumervil, etc) that they're still stronger than last season by a little bit.

The Pats, on the other hand, have had the offseason from hell. I think they & the Broncos are WORSE than last season. The Texans & Benagls? Let's just say I have no faith in Schaub & Dalton. I don't think either one of them will ever win a Super Bowl.

And I don't know what gave you the idea that the Bengals' division is easy. And the AFC South has gotten much stronger, so it's not like Houston's a lock for the 1 seed. The Texans might actually be the 2nd best team in the AFC from a personnel standpoint now that they drafted DeAndre Hopkins; he & Johnson will give defenses fits. But when it comes playoff time, I think Schaub will blow it.

 

[RegentDenali]

Atlanta,SF, Seattle, Packers from NFC

Denver, Pats, Texans from AFC

 

[Clayton]

And I don't know what gave you the idea that the Bengals' division is easy.

I'm not sure where you got that idea, either. AFC North should be a difficult division compared to the South and West.

I'm really not going to knock the 'repeat' Super Bowl pick too much but Im not convinced that its any better or worse a prediction than saying Atlanta vs Denver or Seattle vs Houston.