Starting 0-1 Is Not Good. 0-2 Stinks Even More
by Ted Glover on Sep 16, 2010 11:18 PM CDT
Email
Print
This Sunday, the Minnesota Vikings open their home schedule against the Miami Dolphins, a team that I have hated since Larry Csonka ran wild against the Purple People Eaters in Super Bowl VIII. After coming home from New Orleans with an 0-1 record, the chances of the VIkings making the playoffs, speaking historically and statistically (would that be hististically?) are under 50%. What if you start off 0-2? Well, it puts you in a hole that you can dig out of only one time out of ten, approximately. Let's break it down after the jump
Every statistic has an anomaly. For example, if you start 6-0, the chances of you making the playoffs are over 95%...unless you're the 2003 Minnesota 'Nate Poole Game' Vikings, or the 2009 Denver Broncos. But getting off to a slow start makes it very difficult to get to the post season. The exact numbers of 0-1 teams making the playoffs, at least over the last 10 years, is 25%. Twenty...five...percent. So the Vikings already have, statistically speaking, only a 1 in 4 shot of making the playoffs. Just for grins, I looked at the 12 playoff teams from last season: Bengals, Jets, Ravens, Patriots, Colts, and Chargers in the AFC. In the NFC there were the Cowboys, Eagles, Packers, Cardinals, Vikings, and Saints. Of those 12 teams, only two...two...made the playoffs, the Bengals and the Cardinals.
If you start 0-2, the chances of you making the playoffs is 10%. Only 7 out of 69 teams have done it since 2000 But again, there is an anomaly for every statistic. Your 2008 NFC North Champions, the Minnesota Vikings, staggered to an 0-2 start by losing to Green Bay and Indianapolis, but rebounded to go 10-6 and win the division by a game. The 2007 New York Giants started 0-2, and they won the Super Bowl.
Do I think the Vikings will make the playoffs if they win against Miami? Yes, I do. They have a good team, they are better than Miami, and they are at home. It is essential that they get to 2-1 and not only beat Miami, but also the Lions next week. October looks like a brutal schedule, with three road games against the Jets, Packers, and Patriots, and it doesn't get much easier after that.
With only 16 games on the schedule, every game counts. And in the NFL, getting off to a slow start can end a season almost before it begins. The Vikings have an uphill battle, but if any team can do it, I feel it's this one.
Just don't lose Sunday, okay?
Oh, and 0-3? There have been three 0-3 playoff teams since the NFL expanded the playoffs to 12 teams, the last being the 1998 Buffalo Bills.
If that happens, it's hockey season, baby!!
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
chargers once went 0-4 and
12 ina row to make the playoffs.
Stats are Scary
because they are often accurate predictors. That said, I think there is no accounting for the “Favre Factor” in stats like these. This isn’t your average 0-1 football team, and if you look around the league lots of good bets to make the playoffs started 0-1 this season. The Colts, Chargers, Vikings, Falcons, 49ers…all were/are still expected to be contenders.
Favre didn’t have training camp or much preseason work, is missing his #1 wideout, and has to build some confidence in his new receivers. Our offense won’t look that sputtery most of the time and we won’t always be playing the defending champs in a huge nationally televised rivarly game. This Vikings team is a playoff team, no matter what the numbers say.
That said, get back to me if we are 0-3 and ask again…..
2004 Packers
Began the season 1-4, but finished 10-6 to make the playoffs and win the division.
That ultimately is the “Favre Factor.”
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
2008- Pennington started 0-2
to 2-2, to 2-4 to make the greatest single-season turn around in NFL History and the playoffs. Just sayin…
KILL BILLS VOLUME DONE.
Getting Farve's Funeral Pyre ready for Sunday.
"Remember, you are the 1st Marines! Not all the Communists in Hell can overrun you!"
Fire Dan Henning! Again!
Let's think about this.
There are thirty two teams in the NFL, right? And how many make the playoffs? Twelve, right?
Twelve divided by thirty two is 37%. So losing your first game makes you twelve percent less likely to make the playoffs than having not played your first game at all. Not yet time to panic.
Exactly
This is just what I was going to post. Losing the first game is correlated with a lower chance of making the playoffs, but it isn’t an overwhelming number.
Bad teams are more likely to lose than good teams. Losing also puts you at a disadvantage. But to go from 37.5% to 25.0% is not a huge factor.
Also, consider that would be just the statistics over the whole league, not accounting for the quality of the team, and the quality of the team they lost to.
The Vikings are a good team that played another good team and lost. It was also a road game. If they lost a home game to the Rams, then they are a bad team. But I doubt the VIkings are a bad team.
The Vikings already would be considered a good team with a strong chance of making the playoffs (better than 50% I would say). So, we are probably still at least even money to win the division and probably better than that for at least a wildcard.
Bottom line too, a loss is a loss. We lost 4 last year. Doesn’t matter when they occur. This year, who knows.
by HammeroftheGods on Sep 17, 2010 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Great point.
I thought the same thing when I heard some of the talking heads spouting off these statistics. Between the Vikings, Colts, Chargers, Cowboys, Falcons, Bengals, Jets, and 49’s, there’s a very good chance that at least half of teams in the playoffs this year will have lost their first game.
So much for statistics.
How about the Panthers?
2001 to be exact. Beat the Vikings in week 1, went on to lose every other game in the season. I’m not worried. Yet.
Agreed
At least the next 2 are must-wins. I don’t think we should lower our expectations during the stretch vs. good teams, either. If this is a real SB run, then the team should be able to beat just about anybody on any given Sunday.
Losing to the defending super bowl champions in their house is not a normal circumstance
If we lost to an average to low team then i would agree our chances would be sketchy. Losing to the best team in the NFL last year is not something to flip out about. Losing to them in a 14-9 game makes me even less worried. However, we do need to beat the middle of the road and the one and done play off teams for sure.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
by Grime on Sep 17, 2010 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Finally
Losing to the best team in the NFL last year is not something to flip out about
Trying not to gloat, I just have to say its nice to hear someone ackowledge we were the best team last year. Now you guys SKOL F** the rest of your schedule and lets have a real rematch in the NFCCG this year.
I think..
Any team who wins the Superbowl, has the right to be called the best team of that year.
Is it opinionated? Yes, but, that is how it is..
If the Vikings had won last year, I am sure most people would say that maybe the Colts/Saints were better..
And if neither the Vikings/Saints win this year, I bet a bunch of us could say we do not think that the team that won was the best team.. But, they are the champions.. And generally the Champions = the best.
Worried before the loss.
0-1 isn’t the point, it’s the fact that the team has weaknesses that have not been addressed. Coming into the season I figure we are a 9-10 win team with the schedule and personnel we have. That really hasn’t changed with this loss.
The winner of the North will probably only have 10-11 wins (Packers) leaving Our Vikes at #2 (probably 9-7).
The Packers will not win the division.
GUARANTEED!!!!!!
56 Trolls and counting .
Goodell put together a schedule that appears difficult in the beginning . But if we stay healthy . Win the games we are suppose to win . We will be fine . Philly was a team we were suppose to chalk up as a loss . By way of a late December date . Outdoors on grass in the cold . And look at the turn of events . Martz’s greatest shoow on turf is a fizzle . Detroit is racking up the IR casualties . As GB is with kek starters gone for the year . Hawk for Lynch ???
I see WAS better . But Dallas worse . ARI is bad . Jets can’t score again . And the Dolphins are thin in both Trenches . Henne was average at best last week . We will look scary after we leave Lambeau . That is how the schedule was written .
Ideally
We generally have started strong…… in the season..
A hefty difficult early season would mean coasting the remainder of the season out. Sitting players, and what-not…. Or having the easy schedule to make a come-back to clinch a division.
Either way, I am not too worried at the moment.
We are a good team who just needs to work the kinks out of our offense.
Good luck
Minnesota has a good team. Even if you do happen to start 0-2 I still think you’ll make the playoffs, provided Favre just has a decent year. He doesn’t have to put up the same numbers he did last year for the Vikes to do some damage.
I’d hold off on saying the Vikings are just flat out better than the Dolphins, however. I think the defenses are pretty even and on offense, the Fins have a better running game (yes, I know you have AP, but we do have 2 backs that are starter quality) Favre is more experienced, but that also makes him old, and he seems to be a little gimpy. Henne can play…just because he didn’t have the greatest game last week on the road (neither did Favre) doesn’t mean he’s not a good QB. He also has a better receiving corps to work with right now, especially if Harvin is out. I think this is a pretty even matchup on paper. We’ll see how it translates to the field.
I saw a couple of folks predicting blowouts….that doesn’t really happen to these Dolphins, though. Since Sparano has been the head coach, the Dolphins have only been blown out once (31-10 to Arizona in 2008, in only his second game as coach). When the Dolphins lose, its usually by a TD or less. We play a lot of close games.
Eh
After taking statistics class I was instilled with a deep distrust of statistics. When it comes down to it, it isn’t statistics that are playing the games, it is people. And people have a way of surprising you. You can’t mathematically quantify the human element.
For example, when the Patriots were cruising toward that perfect season (was that the 2007 season?) and then got beat. Statistically, there was no reason they should have lost. Statistically, they were the better team. But they still lost.
Statistically, the Vikings were the better team on January 24, 2010, and they got beat. A team doesn’t need to have a full advantage, they just need to have an advantage at a critical point. Statistics be damned.
Seems to me that strategically and statistically Napoleon wasn’t supposed to be able to lose at Waterloo either.
Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
- Paul Gauguin
Well
part of the reason the Pats lost that SB is because they went against statistics and went for it on 4th down just past mid-field, rather than taking the safer route and either punting or trying for the long FG. Those 3 points would have been awesome for them. And so would have been preventing giving the Giants a long field.
Statistically, there was no reason they should have lost.
In one sense, each game was an independent event; however, the probability of winning 15 in a row < 16 in a row < 17 in a row…so yes, it did make some statistical sense that they did not win out.
Correction
I meant winning 15 in a row > 16 in a row > 17 in a row…
To look at it another way, if a team is good enough to win all but 2 games on a 19-game schedule, the probability of winning that last game is very small if there is only 1 loss up to that point.
3 teams have gone 0-2 and won the Superbowl
The Vikings have never won the Superbowl
The Vikings have a better chance at winning the Superbowl if they go 0-2
Aren’t stats wonderful
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
it might be tough to pull off a loss this week, tho.
in the future there will be no war...there will only be rollerball.
0-2 YEAH RIGHT
The Vikings will come out very strong, I expect them to start out with a play action pass the very 1st play. I would not rule out a reverse with harvin either. This will be a run 1st offense but I see them passing more on 3rd and shorts this game.
Let's not forget
I’d wager at least half of the teams that lose their first game, or especially their first two games, are not realistic playoff contenders anyways. Is it relevant to the Rams playoff chances that they lost week 1? Or how about the Bucs?
I think those teams skew the stats pretty severely.
0-2 NOT GONNA HAPPEN
AP said he wants 40-50 carries per game. That wont happen but it may happen Sunday and Vikings will win! Look for a huge game out of Shiancoe and Peterson. NFL player agrees.
http://tightend.blogspot.com/2010/09/week-2-nfl-winners-losers.html
"Don't Be Afraid to Stand on a Pile of 'No's' for one 'Yes'"
http://tightend.blogspot.com
I'm not worried about going 0-3
but if we did it’d still never be hockey season
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Roger Goodell wants Wi-Fi in every stadium
- Plaxico Burress wants to workout for the Dolphins; Dolphins don’t want Plaxico Burress
- NFLPA files collusion claim against NFL, claiming salary cap arrangement in uncapped year
- Donald Driver compared winning ‘Dancing With The Stars’ to winning Super Bowl
- Report: Most NFL players would have no problem with an openly gay teammate
