Top 5 and bottom 5

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:42 pm

BSmack wrote:Like I said, strength of schedule is absolutely fucking meaningless.

you're a fuckin' jerkoff

.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:49 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
BSmack wrote:Who the fuck have the Pats played?
Based on last year's records, only the Bills and Raiders (138 combined wins) have a tougher 2007 schedule than the Pats (137 combined wins.)

And we all know how last year's records impact this year. Just ask any fan of the 3-0 New Orleans Saints, Chicago Bears or San Diego Chargers.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:08 pm

Updated list

1. New England
2. Dallas
3. Pittsburgh
4. Indianapolis
5. Green Bay

28. St. Louis
29. Miami
30. New Orleans
31. Buffalo
32. Atlanta

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:22 pm

Well, since the Chargers have by far the lowest yards-per-carry this season, I'll have to give them the #1 ranking.

The Browns and Steelers are tied for most-per-carry, so they'll tie for the 31st ranking.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:27 pm

BSmack wrote:And we all know how last year's records impact this year. Just ask any fan of the 3-0 New Orleans Saints, Chicago Bears or San Diego Chargers.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say…. The NFL’s data was largely based upon last year's performance. Are you suggesting the NFL should rework their season schedule on a week to week basis? Do you have a better system? No? Okay then, shut the fuck up. The Steelers creampuff line-up this year reads like your average SEC team’s OOC schedule. Let’s chat more on this topic come Dec 9th when your shit franchise is exposed for the early season frauds they really are.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:49 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I am going to go out on a limb here and say…. The NFL’s data was largely based upon last year's performance. Are you suggesting the NFL should rework their season schedule on a week to week basis? Do you have a better system? No? Okay then, shut the fuck up. The Steelers creampuff line-up this year reads like your average SEC team’s OOC schedule. Let’s chat more on this topic come Dec 9th when your shit franchise is exposed for the early season frauds they really are.

That was a whole lot of bluster that didn't address the point at hand. Which is that "Strength of Schedule" is fucking meaningless when it comes to ranking NFL teams. A far better indicator is how well the teams execute in all facets of their game. Which, btw, is not something that anyone on this board is even remotely qualified to analyze.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:51 pm

BSmack wrote:That was a whole lot of bluster that didn't address the point at hand. Which is that "Strength of Schedule" is fucking meaningless when it comes to ranking NFL teams. A far better indicator is how well the teams execute in all facets of their game. Which, btw, is not something that anyone on this board is even remotely qualified to analyze.

That’s funny, Lipps. I don’t recall debating with you, or anyone else for that matter, who the top 5 are and what my criterion are for such meaningless rankings. If you actually read what you’re responding to, you’ll notice I jumped in when you bagged on the Patriots opponents through three games. Two of which, are moot because they’re divisional opponents and on the schedule every fucking season… Twice. You follow?

I am quite certain the NFL triedto make a tough schedule for NE and did so based largely upon who did what last year. Let’s move onto to relevant information, shall we? San Diego has struggled this year. However, when they were chosen as opponents, I’m sure they were projected to be a tougher game for NE based upon their 14-2 record last year. Conversely, your shit team was rewarded with a creampuff schedule because they sucked dick, yup… you guessed it, last year. I mean really, the Bills, Niners, and Cards out of division to start the season? Meanwhile, NE has Cinci and SD out of division to start the season.

Are you with me yet, Lipps?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:54 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
I am quite certain the NFL tried to make a tough schedule...

Opponent scheduling criteria are based entirely on last years records and pre-set formulas.

It is what it is, and there's no try about it. The only qualifier being at what point in the season those games are scheduled, which really doesn't make a difference when taken into the context of an entire 16 game season.

So no, the league didn't and couldn't have any bias either for or against the Pats, or anyone else for that matter, schedule wise, as your post seems to imply.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:59 pm

UCan't,

No really, You Can't. As in you can't make any fucking sense.

The Pats have started the year off with a 2 1-2 teams and an 0-3 team. I 'bagged" on their schedule because some idiots were trying to claim the Steelers were beneficiaries of a "soft" schedule. So I pointed out that two other teams that said same idiots were anointing as world beaters had actually played softer opponents TO DATE than the Steelers.

Feel free to continue flailing away.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:04 pm

ucant is still pretty sore about that whole Belichick is a cheater business so lashing out aimlessly is to be expected.

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:01 pm

1 NE
2 IND
3 PIT
4 DAL
5 DEN * by default

28 MIA
29 BUF
30 STL
31 NO
32 ATL

Nice pissing match gents...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:41 pm

This is too easy. After 3 weeks we have 5 undefeated and 5 winless teams. Just go by the point differentials. Yeah, I know that's a subjective criteria, but it's as good as any. Save the SoS arguements, because it really doesn't hold water in the NFL. You play the hand you're dealt. It will get tougher to grade these teams once the weeks start to click off.

1. Patriots +79 - that's totally insane
2. Steelers +71 - so's that
3. Cowboys +41
4. Colts +39
5. Packers +32

28. Dolphins -23
29. Falcons -34
30. Rams -36
31. Bills -55
32. Saints -65

So there you have it boys. An indisputable Top and Bottom 5 (yeah right)

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:29 am

War Wagon wrote:Opponent scheduling criteria are based entirely on last years records and pre-set formulas.

It is what it is, and there's no try about it. The only qualifier being at what point in the season those games are scheduled, which really doesn't make a difference when taken into the context of an entire 16 game season.

So no, the league didn't and couldn't have any bias either for or against the Pats, or anyone else for that matter, schedule wise, as your post seems to imply.

Seeing as how I used the words "last year" in italics 3 times in the post you fucking responded to, I am quite certain I was already aware of that. Not only that, I also used those same words in my previous two posts on the same subject. Next time, try not quoting my shit out of context, and please, try reading my previous posts before stepping to me.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. The Patriots "schedule toughness" was determined by what they did last year. The opponents selected for them were also based upon what they did last year. Two out of the first three opponents for the Patriots made the playoffs last year. They NFL did indeed "try" to give them a tough schedule. Not because "they're the Patriots and there's a fucking conspiracy" as you so blatantly attempted to mischaracterize my post, but rather, because the Pats had a good season... LAST YEAR.

This is not an exact formula, mind you. There is no EXACT inverse relationship based upon last year's success and this year's schedule... but there is a trend. Of course, the Bears went to the Super Bowl last year and have one of the easiest schedules this year. Go figure.

As far as your trade offer goes, I am now ignoring all trade proposals that are so one-sided and not worth my time. You're about the 4th asshole who's made a shit assed proposal for AP. I am tired of it. I can only take so much ridiculousness. I politely declined the first few... Sorry.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:40 am

BSmack wrote:The Pats have started the year off with a 2 1-2 teams and an 0-3 team. I 'bagged" on their schedule because some idiots were trying to claim the Steelers were beneficiaries of a "soft" schedule. So I pointed out that two other teams that said same idiots were anointing as world beaters had actually played softer opponents TO DATE than the Steelers.

I could give two fucks about your debates with other people. You can't take what someone else posted and apply it to our discussion.

If/when you're able to process the preceding sentence, wake me. You're posting blindly without a care in the world to who and what you're responding to. I hate to go all IKYABWAI, but that's the definition of flailing.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:51 am

There is actually very little the league can do to give a team an easy or difficult schedule.

Each team's schedule is set up with this formula.

- 6 games v. division foes
- 4 games v. an in-conference division
- 4 games v. an opposite conference division
- 2 games against the teams that finished in the same place in their respective division the previous season (i.e. 2nd place) in the same conference, omitting the division that the team's division is already paired up with

So as you can see, it's not easy for the league to give, for example, the Super Bowl champions a super-difficult schedule, because nearly all of the schedule follows a standard formula.

Only the 2 games v. same-finish opponents truly be 'manipulated' to make for a difficult of easy schedule.

Oakland was the worst team in the league last year, and yet, by records, they face one of the most difficult schedules this year, even given the fact that they play 2 games v. last place AFC teams from last year.

All of that said, the league can dick around with an individual team's schedule in other ways, such as giving them tough back-to-back games, or bye week placement, or short week games, etc ....

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:05 am

poptart wrote:Oakland was the worst team in the league last year, and yet, by records, they face one of the most difficult schedules this year, even given the fact that they play 2 games v. last place AFC teams from last year.

The thing working against your pathetic franchise is they play in a "tough" division... oh... and then there's the fact they can't schedule games against themselves to bring down their SOS.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:13 am

I'm not complaining about Oakland's schedule.
Just making the point that the league can't do much to insure that a team plays a soft or difficult schedule.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:53 am

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:...try reading my previous posts before stepping to me.

Oh, ok ucantsteptomeonthisplayground.

As far as your trade offer goes, I am now ignoring all trade proposals that are so one-sided and not worth my time. You're about the 4th asshole who's made a shit assed proposal for AP. I am tired of it. I can only take so much ridiculousness. I politely declined the first few... Sorry.

The chowd fan in you should have been salivating over Maroney, and AP might turn out to be a fumble away from Chester Taylor taking his carries, but since you already know what a ridiculous trade offer that was...

I don't offer one sided trades, btw. I've got more respect and courtesy for my fellows. If you think Maroney for Peterson isn't worth the time to decline the fucking trade...

Whatever.

orcinus · Post by **orcinus** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:12 am

Who is this AP fellow?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:27 am

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I could give two fucks about your debates with other people. You can't take what someone else posted and apply it to our discussion.

Yes I can when your original post was a reply to what I had said to those posters. Llet's rehash...

UCant wrote:
BSmack wrote:Who the fuck have the Pats played?
Based on last year's records, only the Bills and Raiders (138 combined wins) have a tougher 2007 schedule than the Pats (137 combined wins.)

Of course I was referring to the 2007 records of the teams the Steelers and the Pats have ALREADY played. Which means your post was totally off base and tangential to say the least. But hey, I figured I'd humor you a little.

If/when you're able to process the preceding sentence, wake me. You're posting blindly without a care in the world to who and what you're responding to. I hate to go all IKYABWAI, but that's the definition of flailing.

Why should I wake you? All the more fun to let you swim in your own little Sea of Myopia. I can't wait until the Steelers clinch home field for the playoffs. You probably already have 10 posts written about Cowher's record in AFC Championship games and another 50 about the Steelers "weak schedule" (never mind that the Pats don't have a single worthy divisional opponent or anything). So keep clinging to LAST YEAR. The rest of us will deal with the present reality.

upstart · Post by **upstart** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:28 am

War Wagon wrote:ucant is still pretty sore about that whole Belichick is a cheater business so lashing out aimlessly is to be expected.

Don't be ridiculous,the Pats have proved it on the field,so you cry, that is to be expected.Just remember the Pats aren't telling anyone what they can or cannot do. It's the other teams and the league telling the Pats what they can or cannot do.

Why?

Because, the other teams are stupider then I thought and are spinless.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:38 am

upstart wrote:Because, the other teams are stupider then I thought and are spinless.

I'm claiming dibs on this sig.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:53 am

poptart wrote: All of that said, the league can dick around with an individual team's schedule in other ways, such as giving them tough back-to-back games, or bye week placement, or short week games, etc ....

And I'm sure you're busily researching the Raiders schedule to discover just exactly how they got dicked by the league again this year.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:39 am

I researched it a long time ago.
Looks fair enough.
Hey, the West, overall, is soft.

For Oakland, this early portion is the easy part, it seems.
After the bye week in week 5 things appear to be pretty damn difficult the rest of the season.

Not the kind of schedule you'd hope for your last place team to receive.

But as I said, the league can't 'plan' it that way.

It just is.

uptard wrote:Because, the other teams are stupider then I thought and are spinless.

Archive!

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:10 pm

War Wagon wrote:The chowd fan in you should have been salivating over Maroney, and AP might turn out to be a fumble away from Chester Taylor taking his carries, but since you already know what a ridiculous trade offer that was...

I don't offer one sided trades, btw. I've got more respect and courtesy for my fellows. If you think Maroney for Peterson isn't worth the time to decline the fucking trade...

Whatever.

Why the fuck should I be "salivating" over some dude who on his best day doesn't play any 3rd down or short yardage situations? Nevermind the fact that dude hasn't fully recovered from off-season surgery and won't be 100% until the 08 season. Tell me again, bro, why would I trade an up and coming fantasy stud good for 15-20 pts/week for some part-time player with a bum leg? Don't expect me to throw you a line because you overpaid for some stiff on my favorite NFL team.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:43 pm

orcinus wrote:Who is this AP fellow?

Used to go by the name “ZZ Top”. A fair trade would be AP for CrumpledFuckstain, Jack, and a tard to be named later.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:46 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Why the fuck should I be "salivating" over some dude who on his best day doesn't play any 3rd down or short yardage situations? Nevermind the fact that dude hasn't fully recovered from off-season surgery and won't be 100% until the 08 season. Tell me again, bro, why would I trade an up and coming fantasy stud good for 15-20 pts/week for some part-time player with a bum leg? Don't expect me to throw you a line because you overpaid for some stiff on my favorite NFL team.

Other than saying you need to monitor AP for signs of hitting the rookie wall, you're spot on with that. Don't take shit from nobody Spider.

Well that and Wags NEVER overpays. 7 dollars remaining in his salary cap should have told you that.

trev · Post by **trev** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:15 pm

uptard wrote:Because, the other teams are stupider then I thought and are spinless.

Classic.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:26 pm

trev wrote:Classic.

Yes. upstart is an excellent troll that someone dusted off and started using. RACK IT.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:35 pm

I'm still wondering...

Who is this AP fellow?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:42 pm

Dinsdale wrote:I'm still wondering...

Who is this AP fellow?

A better back than Lawrence Maroney.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:44 pm

I think my fellow Pats fan is just upset that he gets to face the Bruiser juggernaut this week. Oh and it has added Antonio Gates this week. It's ok my friend. It will be painless....... :D

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:53 pm

BSmack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I'm still wondering...

Who is this AP fellow?
A better back than Lawrence Maroney.

Atomic Punk?

What can't he do?

First he captures a Russian submarine singlehandedly from a jet-fighter; then he serves as a stand-in for Eddie Van Halen, both on stage and in the bedroom; and now he runs the rock for the Vikes, even while handicapped with double-vision?

Anatomically Punked... Renaissance Man, or Compulsive Liar... YOU make the call.

Unless of course you assfaces were referring to AD... you know... the rookie running back for the Vikings.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:14 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Atomic Punk?

What can't he do?

First he captures a Russian submarine singlehandedly from a jet-fighter; then he serves as a stand-in for Eddie Van Halen, both on stage and in the bedroom; and now he runs the rock for the Vikes, even while handicapped with double-vision?

Anatomically Punked... Renaissance Man, or Compulsive Liar... YOU make the call.

Unless of course you assfaces were referring to AD... you know... the rookie running back for the Vikings.

His initials are AP. Adrian Peterson. Why Sooner fans insist on stealing the AD nickname from a legend like Anno Domini I just don't know.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:17 pm

BSmack wrote:Why Sooner fans insist on stealing the AD nickname from a legend like Anno Domini I just don't know.

Hehehehe.

You'll understand the AD nickname, once he does what he's legendary for all over your team (which obviously only happens every few years).

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:30 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:Why Sooner fans insist on stealing the AD nickname from a legend like Anno Domini I just don't know.

Hehehehe.

You'll understand the AD nickname, once he does what he's legendary for all over your team (which obviously only happens every few years).

Limp off the field??

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:31 pm

Dinsdale wrote: You'll understand the AD nickname, once he does what he's legendary for all over your team...

What? Fumble?

Yep, he was tearing it up for a while in that game last sunday, until Jared Allen got his mitts on him a time or two and ripped the ball out. Soon after he became a non-factor. "All Day" my ass. The rook was taking a beating and sucking wind in the 2nd half.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:49 pm

Let's see... a rook has 431 yards of offense in his first 3 games.

Last season, a player put up similar numbers, and he was considered "one of the all-time greats" and a "first ballot HoFer" for it. And it didn't take 6 years into AD's career to do it.

So, All Day is already showing that he's better than the "greatest RB ever," at this early point in his career. Although he is falling way behind his predecessor when it comes to whiney meltdowns and douchebaggery.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:43 pm

Whattup with all the cack sucking for NE? The Colts are still #1 in the league.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:12 am

1 Patriots
2 Dallas
3 Indy
4 Green Bay
5 Detroit

28 Dolphins
29 Falcons
30 Browns
31 Saints
32 Rams