Satan said:
Hey, the Steelers have a pretty decent defense–it’s their offense that sucks more that many industrial vacuums. (But I’ll agree that the Bengals are the worst team in the NFL.)
As for the best team in the league right now, I’d say probably the Vikings. But since the playoffs aren’t being held right now, that’s mostly irrelevant–the question is who will be the best team at the end, and for that I’d bet on the Rams before I bet on the Vikes.
This methodology is very suspect. While it might provide a (very) rough estimate of skill, it doesn’t take into account any other factors, including strength of schedule, and the actual number of wins and losses a team has.
If I interpret this the way you seem to intend it (points for/points against * 16 games), the Rams would be predicted to finish 11-5 this year. That means they would have to finish 5-5 for the rest of the season.
::laughs::
I suspect this methodology is based on flawed statistical practices, but the late hour and my lack of facilities in the field of statistics prevent me from further pursuing this.
However, I think we both can agree that the Bengals suck.
Well, ** capacitor** is drunk.
The * Giants? *
:rolleyes:
Best teams:
1- Rams: Their offense just seems unstoppable for the second year in a row. Their big tests will be againsts the Vikings and the Bucs. The Vikes can score a lot too and with a few good bounces MAYBE they edge the Rams… The Bucs’ defence is the only one I can think of who could maybe hold the rams to less than 28 points. Assuming they can get their offence on track for that one game, they might win.
2- Colts: Although they have not been that great so far, I think they will finish strong like they did last year and go something like 12-4. Their offensive tools are just too varied and effective. The defense can hold up when necessary.
3- Vikings: Obviously, a lot of offence and the defence is solid. A good all-around team.
Worst team: Chargers. At least the Bengals have some promising players who could improve. All the Chargers have is an overrated, ageing defence…
I guess you mean that the Jets are one of the best with Testaverde and one of the worst without him. No argument.
No way. Nobody is worse than the Bengals. The Chargers may be old, but they’re nowhere NEAR as bad as the Bengals.
The Bengals are presently being outscored by a 4-to-1 margin, which is unprecedented in recent NFL history. They’d have to get twice as good to be as bad as San Diego.
The Chargers will end up 2-14 or 3-13 or something. The Bengals will not win twice, and might not win once.
Let me put it this way; the Bengals got shut out this weekend and it barely changed their per-game offense (they went from 7 points a game to 6.) They have not been close in any game. Their offensive line is completely overwhelmed; they’re being outsacked 24-10 so far and taking more losses on rushing plays than any other team in the league. There’s some talent in the rushing corps but with no blocking it’ll come to naught.
Hey, the Giants smacked down the Broncos when they were 11-0. So why not them? They got the defense that the Rams never faced so far, and the running game will eat the Rams defense alive. The Giants will have 40-45 minutes of time of possession in the game. If Jim Kelly (Super Bowl) and John Elway can’t win with only 15-20 minutes of possession, what can Kurt Warner do?
This methodology is very suspect. While it might provide a (very) rough estimate of skill, it doesn’t take into account any other factors, including strength of schedule, and the actual number of wins and losses a team has.
If I interpret this the way you seem to intend it (points for/points against * 16 games), the Rams would be predicted to finish 11-5 this year. That means they would have to finish 5-5 for the rest of the season.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually, I would predict them to finish the season
13-3.
They’ve been slightly lucky so far in that they haven’t lost. I would expect them to average a .693 winning percentage for the rest of the year, which leave them about 13-3. The fact that they’ve been a little bit lucky to date does not mean they will be UNLUCKY the rest of the way.
You’re right, of course, in that there are lots of other thinkgs to consider, but I figured I’d throw it on here for something to do.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RickJay *
**
Personally, I believe that the methodology works a lot better in baseball, and at the end of the season for several reasons:
Sample size of 162 games is more significant than 16 games.
Scores in baseball tend to be less spread out (a guess on my part)–with fewer games played, a big blowout in football can really skew the results
Strength of Schedule in baseball is far more uniform
from top to bottom.
The last factor in particular is important.
Dammit! This thread is just a transparent excuse to bash my Bengals!
Dammit.
{Eric Cartman}
Screw you guys. I’m going home.
{/Eric Cartman}
Who needs an excuse for that? The 2000 Bengals may just be the worst NFL team EVER.
Upon further review, the Bengals are worse than the Chargers. I’d forgotten that, in six games, the Bengals had been shut out three times. It takes a special kind of incompetence to do that.
Questions:
Could the Bengals beat a good college team?
Could the Bengals beat a CFL team?
If we hand-picked Bengals for an Arena Football team, could they win in that league?
Answers
-Yes
-No
-No
The reasoning is this: The Bungles are still a collection of very good college players, if still shitty pros. I don’t think that talentwise Arena or CFL teams can compete either, but with the rules structured as they are, and the players picked to optimize in these systems the Bungles (and most NFL teams) would be to far out of their environment to succeed.
The best is the Rams without question. The Vikings offense is overrated. They do not have anywhere near as many options as the Rams. The way to beat the Rams is to get them outdoors late in the year in cold blustery weather. In a dome(track meet) forget about it.
The Bengals are not only the worst team in football they are the worst organization. Top to bottom they are suspect at best. Finally getting rid of Coslet provided some sense that they are trying to win but come on!!! If they were serious about winning they wouldn’t have hired Coslet in the first place much less allowed him to hang around as long as he did. The people of Cincinnati should be outraged at what is being paraded in front of them.
Omni, I’ll take your bet if you mean it - wanna send me email? 
While I think the Rams are one of the best teams in football, I think the schedule so far has magnified their accomplishments a bit. The five teams the Rams have played (they’ve played the Falcons twice) are 10-25, which means they’re 10-19 when not playing the Rams.
The Falcons, the 49ers, and the Seahawks are all pretty bad teams; the Chargers are 0-7, and are contending for NFL’s worst, in this thread and IRL. With the exception of the 4-3 Broncos, that’s been their schedule. And they’re giving up 29 points a game to the likes of these!
I give several teams a resonable shot at beating the Rams: the Vikes, 'Skins, Bucs, Chiefs (this weekend), and perhaps even the Giants. But a team that really might surprise them is, of all teams, the Saints, who can play defense, and who can score points against bad defenses. I’m guessing the Rams will finish 13-3, +/-1.
I think the Titans are the class of the NFL. They’ve got the entire package - a defense, a passing game (despite all the injuries to their receiving corps), and Eddie George. Their opponents so far have gone 16-22, which means they’ve played .500 ball when not playing the Titans. They lost a close one in Game 1, then won two close ones, then have kept getting better. If they meet again in the Hyperbole, the Titans win, this time.
Best team - Saint Louis
It’s a lot easier for other teams to score a lot more when they get the ball back a lot more.
Worst team - Cinnci
When you haven’t scored more points in six games than Saint Louis does in one, you have a problem.
By no way am I saying the Lions are the best or even in the top eight, I just like how they keep winning. They’re ugly and don’t move the ball well but leading the league in turnovers helps. Go Lions!
Worst Team now is easily the Bengals. 6.3 points per game!!!
As for the worst team in the coming years, [url=“http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/don_banks/news/2000/10/19/banks_insider_oct19/”]Redskins financial future[/url The articles focuses on Johnson, but those numbers are frightening.
See ya’ at the bottom of the NFC East skinnies 
My Lions would trounce the Rams.
(of course they’d lose to the Chargers or the Bears the week after, but that’s the Lions for ya)
Make that 228 points in seven games, an astonishing average of 32.6 points per game! Only two teams, San Francisco and Atlanta, have given up more points. Interesting, isn’t it, that the three worst defenses are all in the same division?
I still stand by this, in spite of the trouble they had with Buffalo.
Even though Cincinnati got their first win yesterday and the Chargers lost again, I still think they’re worse than San Diego, though not by much.
Way to go, Sledman, for saying the Chiefs could beat the Rams! RTFirefly may have the right reason for the Rams’ success so far, their relatively weak schedule.
Hey, I said the Chiefs could beat the Rams too!
And a big WOOHOO!!! for Warren Moon! He’s almost as old as I am (he turns 44 in less than a month!) yet he guided the Chiefs to 2 TDs after Grbac came out, including one passing TD.
Until yesterday, I hadn’t even been aware that he was still on an NFL roster. I figured he had to have hung it up by now, but no, he’s still playing - and scoring! - in the NFL.
Middle age is only a state of mind!