NFL Thread - Conference Championship Round

[Jaime L]

The Cowboys are now as hard to stop on offense in real life as they are in Madden. Mobile QB, fast, killer RBs...tons of weapons all over the place. Vikings need to rattle Romo somehow.

ETA: Ahh, Shaun Suisham..still giving Neil Rackers a run for least clutch kicker in football.

[Jaime L]

I think Sidney Rice chest bumping the Viking just made my day.

[Arakasi]

No, no, no. Don't move the goalposts now.

You originally brought up "hot team" in terms of people jumping on the Ravens bandwagon. Well the Ravens did shit at the end of the season. They beat the Raiders to get into the playoffs and that's it. People weren't picking them based on the regular season. The examples I brought up were pretty obvious why. These were wildcard teams that only got on a roll once the postseason started. Cardinals and Giants both made the Superbowl even though they were awful at the end of the regular season. That's the point I'm making about why people jump on wildcard teams. Because half the Superbowl participants over the last 4 years were wildcard teams. The playoffs is a completely different animal than the regular season. When talking about teams that get hot all of a sudden, it's pretty clear I'm talking about teams that only got hot once the playoffs started.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Or are you just trying to stand by a flat wrong statement?

Sigh. Why are you making arguments with goalposts you clearly constructed yet ignoring what I actually said?

This is what I said in the post you teed off on.

Bill Simmons covered it somewhat in his weekly post/podcasts this week as well. Too many times after the first weekend fans overreact on a good performance by a wild card round team. Add in there that the Colts sitting starters and losing the last two how they did didn't sit well with people and I think they were eager to pick the Ravens.

I think people make better picks when they actually analyze the matchups rather then go off of momentum as a way to decide things. History has shown that the "hot" team has rarely won the Super Bowl or even gotten there.

I was talking about teams who are hot in their last number of games. (including both regular season and postseason) You chose a different argument then me and went with it. Congrats.

Of course you are right in that the team who gets hot in the playoffs win the playoffs. That by definition is how it has to be. To win the super bowl you have to win 3 straight, 4 if you come from the wild card round. So whomever wins the super bowl (or loses in the super bowl) is defacto the hot team in the playoffs. There isn't even any point to discussing playoff momentum. Yes I know plenty of times recently weaker regular season teams have had big playoff success. But that is just any given sunday, any team in this league can beat another.

The Ravens did win 3 of 4 to end the season. The Colts lost two straight. The overall media narrative after the Colts sat their starters was how losing this momentum would doom them and how this would come back to haunt the Colts if they went one and done. The Ravens on the other hand were being reported as battle tested, and in playoff mode already and that the Colts would come out flat and the Ravens would run them into the ground. Clearly none of this happened. I feel the Ravens getting all the support they did for beating the Colts was because of this illusion of momentum. If one looked at the matchups one would see Indy is stouter against the run this year, the Ravens have no secondary and it would be unlikely for Manning to repeat Brady and turn it over 3 times in his zone in the first quarter.

Look so far at the game today. 14-3 Cowboys, with Vikings looking to go up more. Once again showing that momentum is an illusion. The Cowboys had all the momentum coming into this and the Vikings none, yet the Vikings are up big already, and might have this game in the bag by halftime. Once again momentum really doesn't mean much, other than of course the team who wins it all. But was it really momentum that won it for them while momentum clearly didn't work for anyone else? That would seem to be a silly argument. It makes far more sense to say teams have strengths and weaknesses and those qualities plus the individual performances of their players on a given day decide what happens. When the Saints and Colts play next weekend, nothing of what they did yesterday will have any meaning whatsoever.

[Caligula_K]

No, Cowboys, don't consistently fumble the ball! That's the wrong strategy you're going for there! If you do that, Favre will win this game, and nobody wants that!

[▲Jim▲]

Man this game is only a two touchdown difference right now, but it looks like it could be closer, or even a blowout. I really think that on the FG that the Cowboys missed, they should have went for it.

[Jaime L]

Arak,

So if a result fits your thesis, fantastic...if not, it's Any Given Sunday.

Honestly, I'm fine with you making points that you can't support without picking and choosing data while ignoring that which completely disproves it. Happens all the time around here. It's the arrogance you do it with I find grating.

[Arakasi]

Heh I find it funny that the guy who calls me arrogant was the one who yelled at me that I had no clue what I was talking about.

All I am saying is that there is no such thing as momentum. You hear football players state this all the time after wins or losses. That next week will be a blank slate, not affected by their performance this week. Yet the media and fans desperately want to believe that momentum exists and has meaning. Every year come playoff time the teams picked to go deep are always the teams that did well in the last month of the season. But when playoff time comes, it is pretty much random who wins. It's just parity.

I am curious though. You said picking or choosing data that disproves my argument. My argument is that there is a lot of parity and that prior momentum means nothing. How would one prove that momentum exists and acutally go about proving it with stats? I am genuinely curious. I am sorry to come off as grating, but I can't help but be amused how much the general fan believes in momentum and uses it to pick who they think will win, when I can't really see any correlation at all between momentum and winning in the playoffs.

[Jaxom 1974]

All I am saying is that there is no such thing as momentum. You hear football players state this all the time after wins or losses. That next week will be a blank slate, not affected by their performance this week. Yet the media and fans desperately want to believe that momentum exists and has meaning. Every year come playoff time the teams picked to go deep are always the teams that did well in the last month of the season. But when playoff time comes, it is pretty much random who wins. It's just parity.

Well perhaps change the word "momentum" with "confidence"...if I've won this week, I should feel a hell of a lot better about the next game, right?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I still can't believe Gaines Adams is dead--wasn't he a top 5 pick a couple of years ago? To be traded so early, and to never live up to his potential, and now this? It's nuts.

[Mya Stone]

Suisham is the opposite of money right now. I have no idea what word it would be, because broke doesn't really cut it.

Jaxom, I "awwed" at you explaining football to little Jack. If you want, I'll totally babysit him and undo all the damage your explanations have done. :P ("Son, Rex Grossman was known to most as a really bad QB, but to me, he'll always be my Sexy Rexy...")

[Jaime L]

Arak,

Not that you had no idea what you were talking about, just that you were flat wrong on that one specific point about "hot" teams never making or winning the Superbowl. Fair point though about my calling you arrogant while being arrogant myself.

This is such a nebulous debate. We're talking about something indefinable: momentum. Can you have momentum after one win? Two? Does it take three? And who says where it begins and where it ends? It exists 'til it doesn't. Let's take a step back: The point that you should analyze the matchup first, and make a pick based on that, is something we both agree on. But it's a point so obvious I don't think It bears mentioning. The difference is, factoring into my overall evaluation of the two teams, I'll consider this nebulous idea of momentum...you won't. Infact, you've gone as far as saying there's no such thing. That momentum flat doesn't exist.

In that regard, I completely disagree. I've seen and felt momentum. I've experienced it in my life. Can I prove its existence? No, but I know it gave me confidence. This is the failing of data...this is why FO can't explain everything and is why they're wrong as often as they're right. Not everything can be measured. It's the very definition of intangible. But if you've ever played sport...if you've ever experienced momentum, you know it exists. Sports is incredibly mental. And often the difference between success and failure is simply the belief that something good will happen here...or alternatively, waiting for everything to go wrong, waiting for the other shoe to drop. Momentum is what allows a lesser team to defeat a greater one. Especially when the margins are as thin as they are in the NFL. Teams are so closely bunched that momentum and simple confidence is often what leads to the million results that shock us. NFL Football is the hardest sport to predict for this very reason.

If you don't believe in it, how do you explain Arizona's run? Any Given Sunday is not an adequate explanation for the 3 games they won last year. And there's no way I believe that was a better team than the teams they beat. Same way with that Giants Superbowl team. This is doubly true with the run the Steelers went on in the 2005 playoffs. Let's be perfectly honest, there was no way they were better than that Colts team they beat that year. So why'd they win? I mean what lies behind the Any Given Sunday concept? It's pretty obviously the mental aspect.

I not only argue that momentum exists between games, it exists during games. How many games have we watched where something goes wrong for a team, then another, then another. I'd argue it happened to the Cowboys in the first half. It's clear they can drive on the Vikings, but Suisham misses a field goal, then Romo takes a big sack...then Romo fumbles. Cowboys keep finding ways to shoot themselves in the foot, when ability-wise it's clear they're right there with the Vikings. You're kidding yourself if you think the difference in the game is anything other than confidence at this point. It's the mental aspect of the sport which allows or destroys execution. I'll agree that momentum only exists in our minds...but that's the most important place it could possibly exist.

ETA: Jaxom inadvertently hit on exactly the right point. Confidence and momentum are basically synonyms.

[Bronn Stone]

Honestly, I'm fine with you making points that you can't support without picking and choosing data while ignoring that which completely disproves it. Happens all the time around here. It's the arrogance you do it with I find grating.

Especially because you are stepping on Rockroi's gig. See above.

[Arakasi]

Well perhaps change the word "momentum" with "confidence"...if I've won this week, I should feel a hell of a lot better about the next game, right?

One would think so, but then again looking at the last number of years I don't see any rhyme or reason to it. There doesn't seem to be a pattern to it. Last year we had the team coming down the stretch who we'd think of as a team with no confidence. Yet clearly they had it, it took them to within one play of winning the super bowl. Facing them was a team who played at home in every game of the AFC playoffs and had been there before, and they won. We've seen winners from teams who just snuck in (Giants), teams who dominated (2004 Pats), teams who were on a down year by their standards (Indy), teams who were facing a juggernaut (2001 Pats, 2007 Giants), teams that struggled their way to a SB (2005 Steelers) and teams who absolutely dominated their opponents (Bucs).

Teams have won from all sorts of seeds and in all sorts of fashions. You can say similar things about the runner ups too. It's pretty clear that all these teams are confident, even the ones who barely squeak in. I do think there is something to the "no one believed in us syndrome" but who knows, it might be as much of an illusion as momentum is. I just think NFL is a bit of a different beast compared to other major sports. The games are played much further apart and during the week the teams are pretty insulated. As well there is a lot of parity and its quite rare you see two teams play where one is outmatched. So more then any other sport I believe one can analyze NFL games pretty much in isolation.

[The Dude]

All I am saying is that there is no such thing as momentum. You hear football players state this all the time after wins or losses. That next week will be a blank slate, not affected by their performance this week. Yet the media and fans desperately want to believe that momentum exists and has meaning. Every year come playoff time the teams picked to go deep are always the teams that did well in the last month of the season. But when playoff time comes, it is pretty much random who wins. It's just parity.

I would generally agree that momentum is overrated when it comes to predicting games. It's mostly just looking at a statistical trend. In that sense it's wrong to assume a team can't win because they don't have momentum.

On the other hand, when analyzing games there's nothing wrong with simply looking at the trends and noticing "that team really isn't playing well" (Vikings), or "the other team is really on a hot streak" (Cowboys). Looking over the past month and how the teams matchup, I could understand people picking the Cowboys. Looking at the whole season (call this average momentum), then the Vikes are the favorites.

I mentioned earlier that the Cowboys were the most popular upset pick of the week. But they were still an upset pick. Meaning that on the whole the oddsmakers favored the Vikings, and therefore people who were actually betting money favored the Vikings. Ultimately, the concept of momentum doesn't carry all the much weight when people predict games nor in the actual game itself. It is still a factor though ;)

[Rockroi]

Especially because you are stepping on Rockroi's gig. See above.

Bronn, if you cannot argue with me please do not insert me into arguments I am not a part of nor have any hand in. Please do not let others argue for you via proxy against others when nobody is engaged in our debate save you and I.

[Jaime L]

I would generally agree that momentum is overrated when it comes to predicting games. It's mostly just looking at a statistical trend. In that sense it's wrong to assume a team can't win because they don't have momentum.

On the other hand, when analyzing games there's nothing wrong with simply looking at the trends and noticing "that team really isn't playing well" (Vikings), or "the other team is really on a hot streak" (Cowboys). Looking over the past month and how the teams matchup, I could understand people picking the Cowboys. Looking at the whole season (call this average momentum), then the Vikes are the favorites.

I mentioned earlier that the Cowboys were the most popular upset pick of the week. But they were still an upset pick. Meaning that on the whole the oddsmakers favored the Vikings, and therefore people who were actually betting money favored the Vikings. Ultimately, the concept of momentum doesn't carry all the much weight when people predict games nor in the actual game itself. It is still a factor though ;)

This basically sums up my thoughts.

Also, even as a guy who believes momentum exists, it doesn't mean I believe it's all powerful. I still took 3 of the 4 home teams in my picks this weekend, including some of the coldest teams in football: The Vikings and the Saints. Simply because I thought they were better. Momentum is just one factor in the evaluation. But I think you're kidding yourself if you believe it doesn't exist at all. Or moreover, you may not believe it exists...but if the other guy does and he has it, you'll definitely feel the results of it. It's the power of belief.

[Jaime L]

On cue, Tony Romo throws one of the worst interceptions you'll ever see. This is what Falco was talking about as "Quicksand" in The Replacements.

[Mack Kilimaro]

Every time that Viking war horn goes off over the PA when something good happens, I feel like I'm going to look up and see the Smoke Monster from Lost. It's very disconcerting.

[BLU-RAY]

How did I screw up the fact that the first game started at 1 EST today? Stupid California.

[Trebla]

Oh Cowboys. :bawl:

Oh well, they'll always have Philly during the off-season.

At least I will get to see them at the Pro Bowl since I will be there. Gotta look at the positives. And try really hard to ignore the offensive line play. Maybe Doug Free isn't gonna be the answer at left tackle. Might have to look really hard at using a first rounder on a offensive tackle.

Next week's game of New Orleans vs Minnesota will be epic.