If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   "Since 2005, Super Bowl winners are 12-0 on the road in the playoffs"   (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 79
    More: Obvious, Texans, Super Bowl, Super Bowl champions, Atlanta, Jets QB, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Gary Kubiak, Cam Cameron  
•       •       •

1964 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 09:42:09 AM
Only Peter King would find it interesting that teams that win the Super Bowl are undefeated anywhere in the playoffs.
 
2012-12-12 10:33:46 AM
Teams that scored the most points in the superbowl are undefeated since 1967
 
2012-12-12 10:35:22 AM
si.wsj.net 

"Since 2005, Super Bowl winners are 8-0 in the Super Bowl." 
 
2012-12-12 10:43:12 AM
What an amazing observation. Now that I think about it, he's right! I can't remember for the life of me the last time a team lost a playoff game en route to the Superbowl!
 
2012-12-12 10:47:54 AM
I didn't want to believe he really wrote this.

I'm sure he'll say something to the effect that he meant that they have won a lot of road games, but let's think about this.

He says 2005 but he must mean the 2005 season, because there's no reason to include the 2004 Patriots who won two home games then beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl in the early part of 2005.

So now we're talking about playoffs that happened in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. That's 7 years. So now we're down to an average of 1.7 road wins per year. But 5 of those wins came from two Giants SB wins, and 3 came from the Steelers in 2005.So now we're down to 4 years, 4 road wins.

So there you have it. Peter King is dumb.
 
2012-12-12 10:57:26 AM
What if he included all the winners and losers of the Super Bowl, since they're not home games? So that would make the record 19-7. Not looking so impressive anymore, is it?
 
2012-12-12 11:52:49 AM
Since the refs GAVE the super bowl to pittsburg so the coach and retiring back could go out winners I don't even care about football, I used to wonder if it was fixed until that game now I know.
 
2012-12-12 12:02:06 PM

jaylectricity: So now we're talking about playoffs that happened in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. That's 7 years. So now we're down to an average of 1.7 road wins per year. But 5 of those wins came from two Giants SB wins, and 3 came from the Steelers in 2005.So now we're down to 4 years, 4 road wins.


He would probably say that you can't just exclude the Giants and Steelers (or the Packers in 2010, who also won 3), and that those years actually serve to prove his point - in 4 of the past 7 years, the Super Bowl winning team has won at least two road games (including 3 teams that won 3 games on the road).
 
2012-12-12 12:22:28 PM
But, how long was Doug Williams a black quarterback?
 
2012-12-12 12:23:18 PM
Elsewhere in the article, he's surprised that the 1st place AFC east team and the 1st place AFC west team play each other two years in a row.
 
2012-12-12 12:24:15 PM
BAH GAWD KING! THAT MAN'S STATISTIC HAS BEEN BROKEN IN HALF!
 
2012-12-12 12:25:54 PM
I think I see the point he's trying to make, but there are definitely ways to word it without saying something so blindingly obvious.

"Since Year X, a disproportionate number of Super Bowls have been won by teams who were on the road for multiple playoff games". Something like that.
 
2012-12-12 12:26:36 PM
This is the unintended blowback of advanced statistical analysis that's been injected into sports over the last 15 years .... your typical lifelong C- student better known as a "sports journalist" now has to shoehorn in random numbers into their columns to make their editorials seem measured and well thought out. It almost makes you long for the days when they just wrote columns lamenting how latin baseball players seem to be "mercurial" and "lack hustle".
 
2012-12-12 12:27:42 PM
Hey, let's all ignore the next line in the article, where he makes his point that Super Bowl champions are playing more road games than home games.

/Yes, he worded it stupidly, but it is a Peter King column after all.
 
2012-12-12 12:29:28 PM
Sounds like a weak-assed attempt to get an Eli Manning thread started.
 
2012-12-12 12:30:34 PM

FreakinB: I think I see the point he's trying to make, but there are definitely ways to word it without saying something so blindingly obvious.

"Since Year X, a disproportionate number of Super Bowls have been won by teams who were on the road for multiple playoff games". Something like that.


That's what I was thinking. The point is that recently SB winners come from the mid to low seeds and therefore HAVE to play on the road more than at home. So a team that can't win road games is at a disadvantage and the high seeds aren't gaining much by being at home.

But he's Peter King so he wrote it the way he always writes.
 
2012-12-12 12:31:58 PM
Peter King is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the NFL head office. He is Goodell's little press secretary.
 
2012-12-12 12:33:15 PM
Tebow?
 
2012-12-12 12:38:54 PM
Insatiable Jesus    

Peter King is nothing more than a Dumbass

Snip the rest of this -mouthpiece for the NFL head office. He is Goodell's little press secretary.
/Mobile Quoting sucks
 
2012-12-12 12:40:19 PM

jaylectricity: I didn't want to believe he really wrote this.

I'm sure he'll say something to the effect that he meant that they have won a lot of road games, but let's think about this.

He says 2005 but he must mean the 2005 season, because there's no reason to include the 2004 Patriots who won two home games then beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl in the early part of 2005.

So now we're talking about playoffs that happened in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. That's 7 years. So now we're down to an average of 1.7 road wins per year. But 5 of those wins came from two Giants SB wins, and 3 came from the Steelers in 2005.So now we're down to 4 years, 4 road wins.

So there you have it. Peter King is dumb.


The 2004 Patriots won the divisional game against the Colts at home, but won the AFC Championship Game on the road in Pittsburgh. So I viewed it the opposite way -- why did he say 5 of the last 7 (2005 - 2011 seasons inclusive) had won at least one road playoff game, when he could make an even stronger case of 6 of the last 8 by including the 2004 Patriots.
 
2012-12-12 12:44:56 PM

InmanRoshi: This is the unintended blowback of advanced statistical analysis that's been injected into sports over the last 15 years .... your typical lifelong C- student better known as a "sports journalist" now has to shoehorn in random numbers into their columns to make their editorials seem measured and well thought out. It almost makes you long for the days when they just wrote columns lamenting how latin baseball players seem to be "mercurial" and "lack hustle".


Nailed it completely.

It's all part of this "cargo cult science" phenomenon that seems to be sweeping political and sports punditry lately.
 
2012-12-12 01:02:52 PM
THIS GUY KEPT ART MONK OUT OF THE HALL FOR HOW MANY YEARS????

Sorry for the caps but REALLY???
 
2012-12-12 01:08:58 PM
The Magic of RG3.
 
2012-12-12 01:09:32 PM
Horsefeathers. What will you tell me next? That since 2005, the Super Bowl winner has also been a division winner or wild card team.
 
2012-12-12 01:12:09 PM

IAmRight: Only Peter King would find it interesting that teams that win the Super Bowl are undefeated anywhere in the playoffs.


The better stat is that the road team wins 41% of the time. From here: home teams from 1990 to 2011 have won just slightly over 58% of their games. So a long term trend in the regular season holds true in the playoffs as well Peter? I am beyond shocked.

Peter King needs to start watching old Madden broadcasts if he wants to enter the "people are tuning in just to see how ridiculously obvious the things I say are and mock me" zone.
 
2012-12-12 01:13:11 PM
This sounds like a Dan Fouts insight.
 
2012-12-12 01:15:31 PM
I think his copy editor was trolling. LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-12-12 01:20:48 PM

InmanRoshi: This is the unintended blowback of advanced statistical analysis that's been injected into sports over the last 15 years .... your typical lifelong C- student better known as a "sports journalist" now has to shoehorn in random numbers into their columns to make their editorials seem measured and well thought out. It almost makes you long for the days when they just wrote columns lamenting how latin baseball players seem to be "mercurial" and "lack hustle".


Exactly. And whereby "advanced" you mean "any stupid farking thing they can think of." It gives us shiat like "hey this QB is undefeated in away games in a dome when it snows outside of the dome over 3 inches."

So here I guess Peter King would have us hoping our teams get a low seed and play a bunch of away games. That's the ticket to the Super Bowl for sure.
 
2012-12-12 01:21:45 PM

InmanRoshi: ***snip***
It almost makes you long for the days when they just wrote columns lamenting how latin baseball players seem to be "mercurial" and "lack hustle".


I had the NFL Network on in the background last night and in one of the segments they cut to one of their analysts to talk about the Texans. This guy, who is paid to provide expert analysis on National Football League football, said, "The Texans' outside linebackers aren't getting it done and if the Texans are going to be successful on defense, the linebackers need to get it done." I rewound it twice to make sure I heard him correctly, then turned it off and cried for awhile.
 
2012-12-12 01:47:07 PM
Paunchy Pete, take that grey stripe out of your hair you look like a skunk
 
2012-12-12 01:50:08 PM

lordjupiter: THIS GUY KEPT ART MONK OUT OF THE HALL FOR HOW MANY YEARS????

Sorry for the caps but REALLY???


Yeah, screw him. He's also on the anti-Ray Guy bandwagon.
 
2012-12-12 01:58:30 PM
Wow. It's hard to look at a stat like that and still think there's any parity in the NFL.
 
2012-12-12 02:01:36 PM

roc6783: InmanRoshi: ***snip***
It almost makes you long for the days when they just wrote columns lamenting how latin baseball players seem to be "mercurial" and "lack hustle".

I had the NFL Network on in the background last night and in one of the segments they cut to one of their analysts to talk about the Texans. This guy, who is paid to provide expert analysis on National Football League football, said, "The Texans' outside linebackers aren't getting it done and if the Texans are going to be successful on defense, the linebackers need to get it done." I rewound it twice to make sure I heard him correctly, then turned it off and cried for awhile.


And he's probably making as much for that single appearance as you and I are for working this month. Combined.
 
2012-12-12 02:21:45 PM
I quit reading Peter King a few years ago. Terrible writer.
 
2012-12-12 02:23:22 PM

lordjupiter: THIS GUY KEPT ART MONK OUT OF THE HALL FOR HOW MANY YEARS????


It shows that nobody made Art Monk's case correctly for him. For instance if we'd cited the following, he'd be a first-ballot HOFer:

- The QB's rating was almost perfect if you look only at plays where Art Monk caught the ball
- The Redskins were never shut out in games when Monk caught a touchdown
- He was 100% of the offensive output on plays where he was thrown to
- When Art Monk scored the game-winning touchdown, the Redskins were undefeated
 
2012-12-12 02:28:22 PM
i1182.photobucket.com

WHO did this man blow to get his "job" at Sports Illustrated?!
 
2012-12-12 02:29:34 PM
Didn't New Orleans get their butts handed to them in Seattle the year AFTER they won the superbowl in 2009? (reads article) ... oh, I get it. English is hard.
 
2012-12-12 02:32:17 PM

maxalt: Since the refs GAVE the super bowl to pittsburg so the coach and retiring back could go out winners I don't even care about football, I used to wonder if it was fixed until that game now I know.


static.prtst.net
 
2012-12-12 02:37:13 PM
t.qkme.me
 
2012-12-12 02:37:56 PM

lordjupiter: THIS GUY KEPT ART MONK OUT OF THE HALL FOR HOW MANY YEARS????

Sorry for the caps but REALLY???


Woo I remember getting the greenlight on Monk's induction!
 
2012-12-12 02:39:31 PM

Treygreen13: Sounds like a weak-assed attempt to get an Eli Manning thread started.


No it didn't, until you showed up and turned it into one, like you ALWAYS do.
 
2012-12-12 02:48:20 PM

Treygreen13: Sounds like a weak-assed attempt to get an Eli Manning thread started.


server1.showbizspy.com
 
2012-12-12 02:59:01 PM

Already Disturbed: Treygreen13: Sounds like a weak-assed attempt to get an Eli Manning thread started.

[server1.showbizspy.com image 300x452]


Dammit that Tard can't even wear sunglasses right.
 
2012-12-12 03:13:34 PM
Hey...cut PK some slack. It's hard to do statistical analysis when you have Tom Brady's balls in your mouth.

BTW, PK is the idiot poster child for "this QB's record is 6-2 vs. this QBs record is 1-4" as if Defense and Special Teams are non-factors, so when you quote nonsensical crap like that...you are coming across as smart as PK.
 
2012-12-12 03:16:58 PM

dietbubba: roc6783: InmanRoshi: ***snip***

And he's probably making as much for that single appearance as you and I are for working this month. Combined.


Hence, my tears.
 
2012-12-12 03:20:58 PM
Before the salary cap era, the NFL was dominated by powerhouses loaded with expensive superstars, e.g. the 80's 49's , getting high seeds and winning superbowls.
(The '85 Pats were a huge anomaly winning on the road the way they did. )

The salary cap era has meant much greater parity in opportunity and now if you get in, you have a chance. (well .. not last years donkeys)

For old guys like me and Petey Rolodex seeing road teams be anything except cannon fodder still seems strange though.
 
2012-12-12 03:27:52 PM

AnEvilGuest: For old guys like me and Petey Rolodex seeing road teams be anything except cannon fodder still seems strange though.


You're right about that. I was looking at some of the Cowboys team facts from the 90's. In their 4 year run of being an absolutely stacked squad of domination, they only played 2 road playoff games, and they were 1-1. Even the best team I ever personally saw put together went into Candlestick and it was like walking into a buzzsaw.
 
2012-12-12 03:42:08 PM

AnEvilGuest: Before the salary cap era, the NFL was dominated by powerhouses loaded with expensive superstars, e.g. the 80's 49's , getting high seeds and winning superbowls. ***snip***


And when you are paid to write analysis about the NFL, I will call you a moron too. His points provide little to no insight and the data he uses could have been obtained in 10 seconds with Google.
 
2012-12-12 03:45:14 PM
No NFC East team has ever lost a Super Bowl that they didn't play in.
AFC North teams are undefeated in Super Bowls played in Australia.

So, is Peter King the new Rick Romero meme?
 
2012-12-12 03:51:55 PM

Treygreen13: AnEvilGuest: For old guys like me and Petey Rolodex seeing road teams be anything except cannon fodder still seems strange though.

You're right about that. I was looking at some of the Cowboys team facts from the 90's. In their 4 year run of being an absolutely stacked squad of domination, they only played 2 road playoff games, and they were 1-1. Even the best team I ever personally saw put together went into Candlestick and it was like walking into a buzzsaw.


Hehe, those were the good ol' days

/go niners!
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report