Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
You should also note that while the average record for a hypothetical team in a season is 8-8, that doesn't account for the fact that the median team in the NFL tends to be a 7-9 team. This is because the elite teams win more games than the awful teams lose. That is to say, that the average NFL team is inevitably more likely to lose to the worst team in the NFL than they are to beat the best team in the NFL. This makes sense, does it not?
Therefore the prototypically average NFL franchise will win about 47% of it's games in the free agency era. The Redskins have won 47% of their games in the Snyder era. I would agree with you that it would be irresponsible to credit Snyder for the success in 1999, but the Redskins are still (give or take) the average NFL franchise in his era.
Maybe average isn't good enough for you, but I don't think that's the argument you are trying to make.
|
U make an excellent point here. While its easy to overblow the mistakes that management makes and overlook their successes (from a qualitative standpoint), I think it's wise to take a closer look at misleading numbers. I think one of the most skewed stats is win pct, especially when people try to use it to gauge how good a team is in a given season. Unlike college football, the pro game doesn't take into account SOS and margin of victory when counting simple wins and lossesn to try to decide how good a team is. These stats really show how good a team is in my opinion.
(Obviously I know the college system is flawed and the NFL does a better job, yata yata yata, i'm just making a point about the metric used.)
The skins situation is unfortunate at times b/c we are in a tough division...don't tell me that we wouldnt have had more success in the Snyder era if we were in the AFC east or NFC west (instead of New England or Seattle respectively). I don't mean to use this as an excuse for our performance but before people start tearin apart our franchise, i think we need to take a closer look at the numbers.