Redskins' Strength of Schedule: We Are A Decent Team

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

JoeRedskin,

Are the Bears (9-3) a better team than the Chargers (8-4) or Steelers (7-5)? Even with that great defense, they are not as good as either of those two teams. Are the Bucs (8-4) a better team than the Steelers (7-5)? Again, even with that defense, the Bucs aren’t as good as the Steelers.

Also, if a team’s record tells us how good a team is, why is it that the Redskins (6-6) were able to beat the Cowboys (7-5), the Bears (9-3), and the Seahawks (10-2)?

And, if the team with the better record beats a team with the worse record, why is it that week in and week out teams beat other teams with better records?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

JoeRedskin,

Are the Bears (9-3) a better team than the Chargers (8-4) or Steelers (7-5)? Even with that great defense, they are not as good as either of those two teams. Are the Bucs (8-4) a better team than the Steelers (7-5)? Again, even with that defense, the Bucs aren’t as good as the Steelers.

Also, if a team’s record tells us how good a team is, why is it that the Redskins (6-6) were able to beat the Cowboys (7-5), the Bears (9-3), and the Seahawks (10-2)?

And, if the team with the better record beats a team with the worse record, why is it that week in and week out teams beat other teams with better records?

In my opinion, yes - b/c the only truly objective standard to judge them by is the bottom line. Right now, today, Chicago is a better team than the Steelers, Bucs and San Diego. They have won more than they lost and won more than any of the teams you have mentioned. You're statements that the Steelers and San Diego are better than Chicago are purely subjective opinion. You can analyze any way you want but the ONLY objective measurement is wins and losses.

Have we beaten teams with winning records, yup. Do good teams beat bad teams, yup. Does that change the bottom line. Nope.

It is a simple statement that, in my opinion, your examples don't disprove. Regardless of the circumstances, good teams win more than they lose. The more you win the better you are.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

JoeRedskin,

I think we are talking past each other. I understand that you are saying that a club's record is all that matters when it comes to the playoffs and whether a team had a successful season. I don't dispute that. I am simply saying that club records don't always reveal how "good" a team is.

Given that you think a record is the "be all, end all," do you therefore disagree with power rankings? After all, there are a lot of teams with identical records. Yet all the teams are ranked in one of the 32 spots on a power poll.
Sometimes even, a club with a great record (i.e. 9-3) is ranked lower than a team with a worse record (i.e. 8-4). How do you feel about those kind of polls?

I know the easy answer to the above question is, "I don't care about polls and rankings, I care about the W-L column and who's in the playoffs." But seriously, do you think that it is impossible to come to different conclusions about the "quality" (and future chances of success) for two teams with identical records?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

JoeRedskin,

I think we are talking past each other. I understand that you are saying that a club's record is all that matters when it comes to the playoffs and whether a team had a successful season. I don't dispute that. I am simply saying that club records don't always reveal how "good" a team is.

Given that you think a record is the "be all, end all," do you therefore disagree with power rankings? After all, there are a lot of teams with identical records. Yet all the teams are ranked in one of the 32 spots on a power poll.
Sometimes even, a club with a great record (i.e. 9-3) is ranked lower than a team with a worse record (i.e. 8-4). How do you feel about those kind of polls?

I know the easy answer to the above question is, "I don't care about polls and rankings, I care about the W-L column and who's in the playoffs." But seriously, do you think that it is impossible to come to different conclusions about the "quality" (and future chances of success) for two teams with identical records?

Teams are as good as their record and teams with the same records are exactly as good as each other. By the way, the earth is flat.

Actually, I don't disagree with "rankings". I just think they are subjective opinions based on nothing more than the particular writer's biases.
I understand your point and agree that not all 7-5 teams are created equal. I also think, however, that unless and until a team wins consistently it can't be considered a "good" team and teams that lose regulary are "bad". The start of this thread was are the Redskins better than their record. I stand by my answer original answer "NO" - they are as good and no better or worse than their record.

Going to bed now. Since you're just to damn pig-headed to admit the insanity of your ludicrous position, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Teams are as good as their record and teams with the same records are exactly as good as each other. By the way, the earth is flat.

Actually, I don't disagree with "rankings". I just think they are subjective opinions based on nothing more than the particular writer's biases.
I understand your point and agree that not all 7-5 teams are created equal. I also think, however, that unless and until a team wins consistently it can't be considered a "good" team and teams that lose regulary are "bad". The start of this thread was are the Redskins better than their record. I stand by my answer original answer "NO" - they are as good and no better or worse than their record.

Going to bed now. Since you're just to damn pig-headed to admit the insanity of your ludicrous position, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough for me. My hands are getting tired.