So. What do the worst teams in the NFL.....

[Kramer]

that looks about right

[xaoshaen]

Er, Houston was considered the bottom of the barrel since day 1. San Fran WON day 1. They were in many games, and currently have a better record than Houston, against a harder strength of schedule.

Not really, considering that Houston essentially threw one game. Of course San Fran was "in" many games, sixteen to be precise. However, they didn't play any better than Houston did, posting a significantly worse point differential. You'll have to actually demonstrate that the Niners had a more difficult schedule, as they faced St. Louis twice, Arizona twice, and Tennessee.

San Fran traded their starting QB, or probably would've had a better year. They were playing some 5th string rodeo guy, Cody Pickett, and still were a better overall team than Houston was. Houston sucked ass and wasn't in almost any early game, unlike SF. Houston only started winning when other NFL teams started mailing in games.

I'm not sure what qualifies as an early game, but by week 8, Houston had one win. San Fran had two. Houston was, what, 25 points worse than SF in terms of differential, and has played Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, and Seattle, as opposed to Washington and Tampa Bay (the playoff teams not held in common at that point).

David Carr is an experienced, decent QB but even he couldn't make Houston a better team than San Fran with Pickett starting. Houston has woeful O & DLs. San Fran does not. Thats the big difference and the reason it'll be easier for SF to get competitive.

San Fran has more talent in the trenches and a good, young coach and system. Houston does not have a new coach and most likely will bring in a new regime and change next year.

Houston's offensive line was the worst in football at pass blocking. San Francisco's was a whopping 30th. The Niners were the worst in the league at run blocking, while Houston was a respectable ninth. Houston has better running backs, better offensive linemen, or both.

San Fran was 'in' quite a few games, and not nearly as far away from competing as Houston was.

Then why was their point differential so much worse than Houston's?

Frank Gore and Barlow are both better runners with more upside than Dom Davis, in my opinion. As most franchises have proven, you can get very good WRs in day 2 of the draft. What San Fran needs, especially against the Seahawks and Rams is a good, fast D. Getting Reggie Bush would not massively upgrade their offense, and allow them to be competitive in a year or two, in my opinion. I have reservations of if he'll be the impact player people think he will.

As I mentioned, either Davis is better than Gore and Barlow, or he's running behind a better line.

Also, you can disrespect San Frans WRs all you want, but Arnaz Battle made one of the prettiest catches this year I've ever seen a WR make and is good. Lloyd is a decent WR, as well.

I saw Koren Robinson make a pretty catch once too... A single example doesn't constitute a predictive trend.

I certainly agree that San Fran has many holes, but they also had a first round QB pick, a new coach, a cap purge, and a lot of turnover so it's difficult to say how good they really are right now.

The big difference between Houston and San Fran, is Houston has played the same guys all year in the skill positions and gotten better, whereis San Fran seems to have gotten worse, and is now using the season to evaluate talent as they should given their woeful record.

San Fran is far from being a good team, but a lot closer than Houston.

It's good to see that optimism remains alive, but the stats say otherwise.

[xaoshaen]

Oh, and DVOA is a joke.

The current DVOA rankings have the Chefs ranked 4th and the Bengals ranked 6th.
Do you really believe KC and Cinci are top 6 teams? I don't, nor do most football knowledgeable people.

Stats only go so far in really showing things

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff.php

And yet, DVOA manages to be astonishingly predictive. "Most football knowledgeable people" had Atlanta pegged as a playoff team and Tampa Bay struggling. It's interesting to see subjective football fans having exactly the same reaction to statistical analysis that subjective baseball fans had to sabremetrics. We all know how that turned out...

[Lyion]

DVOA had many glaring holes and obvious deficiencies this season. It's a stat tool, and like any stat tool in football it's relative to common sense and the limitations of external things.

Stats conveniently ignore things like mop up yardage/points and miscellaneous other small things that aren't included.

I do find it interesting you conveniently ignored my Cody Pickett vs David Carr analogy. Perhaps the reason you think Houston has better people is because you aren't seeing the simple fact San Fran played and evaluated many, many more people unlike Houston.

In relation to Houston vs San Fran, take it from Bill Parcells. You are what your record is. San Fran is a bad team. Houston is worse.

[xaoshaen]

DVOA had many glaring holes and obvious deficiencies this season. It's a stat tool, and like any stat tool in football it's relative to common sense and the limitations of external things.

Actually, the DVOA predictions considered most anamolous turned out to be right. When in conflict with Conventional Wisdom, decent statistical analysis has this annoying habit of trumping it.

Stats conveniently ignore things like mop up yardage/points and miscellaneous other small things that aren't included.

Actually, DVOA accounts for mop up yardage/points and miscellaneous other small things. You should probably read up on what it encompasses before deriding it.

I do find it interesting you conveniently ignored my Cody Pickett vs David Carr analogy. Perhaps the reason you think Houston has better people is because you aren't seeing the simple fact San Fran played and evaluated many, many more people unlike Houston.

I do find it interesting that you conveniently ignored the fact that Houston actually played significantly better than the Niners did over the course of the season, and that regardless of whether Smith or Pickett was starting, Carr outperformed the Niner quarterback, despite being behind what you proclaimed was an inferior line.

In relation to Houston vs San Fran, take it from Bill Parcells. You are what your record is. San Fran is a bad team. Houston is worse.

Oh, you mean Bill "I'm done with football" Parcells? Yeah, we should just accept what he says at face value.

[Lyion]

Who won the game between the 9ers and Houston, again, Xao? Who had the better record?

[xaoshaen]

Who won the game between the 9ers and Houston, again, Xao? Who had the better record?

Hey, way to reinforce the stereotype of the superficial Conventional Wisdom fan, Lyion. You do realize that Houston went out of their way to lose to the Niners and still wound up in overtime right?

Wins and losses are not a good predictive indicator, nor are they a sufficient index of a team's strength in the NFL: witness the Chiefs and the Chargers. By any insightful measure of performance, Houston was pretty clearly better than San Fran last year. Hey, on the upside, the Niners have a quarterback who outperformed Ryan Leaf. Oh, no, wait, that distinction would belong to the Texans.

[Lyion]

If I was a conventional wisdom fan, I'd believe the team with all their beginning year starters in was trying to win. Not the one playing the ass rookies. Not the one who traded their starting QB. Which team was that again?

Anyways, this entire thread you've missed the difference between a poor team evaluating new talent (That'd be San Fran) and a team that was playing starters and not evaluating new talent very well, because they were ohshiting trying to get a win period. Something SF didn't have to worry about after week 1.

I shall now pontificate to you, Tuna style, since you need more Parcells lessons.

A team is its record. Wins and losses are all that matter, despite your attempt to justify your opinion as right in a bogus manner.

By any insightful measure of performance, Houston was pretty clearly better than San Fran last year

Which team was 4-12, and which was 2-14? That seems pretty insightful to me. Stats do not make wins, nor do they equate who is better than whom.

Feel free to take your stats back to the days of Air Coryell and see why they truly are subjective.

You can say Indy was a better team than New England last year. New England still has the ring and is considered the best team then. You are entitled to your opinion. You can say KC is a better team than Cinci this year. They are still sitting at home for the playoffs. San Diego got screwed by playing 4 teams off byes cross country with a brutal unfair strength of schedule. They are still their record.

My opinion comes from watching both teams, and I feel Houston is the worst team in the league. More importantly, the league feels Houston is the worst team. Thats why they get that #1 pick, ya know.

If you think San Fran is, fine. Someone else can believe New Orleans is, or whomever else they want, and probably justify it via DVOA, Power Rankings, Aikman Stats, Eisenhower briefs or any other system they choose. It doesn't change the simple truth of the situation. A team is its record.

Now, who gets the worst team pick come the draft, Xao?

[xaoshaen]

If I was a conventional wisdom fan, I'd believe the team with all their beginning year starters in was trying to win. Not the one playing the ass rookies. Not the one who traded their starting QB. Which team was that again?

Anyways, this entire thread you've missed the difference between a poor team evaluating new talent (That'd be San Fran) and a team that was playing starters and not evaluating new talent very well, because they were ohshiting trying to get a win period. Something SF didn't have to worry about after week 1.

Of course San Fran kept trying new talent... because everything they started with either broke or was defective. Claiming Jeff Garcia would have made everything better is delusional. How'd he do in Detroit with a better supporting cast? Houston was actively trying not to win games by the end of the year. They were hardly "ohshiting", save possibly for worrying about blowing their draft position.

I shall now pontificate to you, Tuna style, since you need more Parcells lessons.

A team is its record. Wins and losses are all that matter, despite your attempt to justify your opinion as right in a bogus manner.

That's ridiculous. Wins and losses are extremely poor predictive indicators. Last year's team may, or may not, have been it's record, but it says very little about next year's team. Even evaluating prior teams on their record is foolish. If you honestly believe that the Minnesota Vikings were as good as Kansas City or San Diego, you just don't know football, period. If you think that Atlanta is going to be a better team than Philadelphia next year, simply because they had a better record, once again, you don't know football. You keep spouting homiles from a coach notorious for verbal misdirection. Me, I'll go with historical results.

Which team was 4-12, and which was 2-14? That seems pretty insightful to me. Stats do not make wins, nor do they equate who is better than whom.

Wow, are you confused. A record is a stat, just a superficial, predictively useless one. You're just using quantitatively inferior stats to support your position. I suppose that's inevitable when you can't come up with any useful stats to do so.

Feel free to take your stats back to the days of Air Coryell and see why they truly are subjective.

The data used in a system like DVOA can't be subjective, as it's obtained directly from on field performance. You're just displaying your ignorance of the system here.

You can say Indy was a better team than New England last year. New England still has the ring and is considered the best team then. You are entitled to your opinion.

I could, but I wouldn't. The data doesn't justify it.

You can say KC is a better team than Cinci this year. They are still sitting at home for the playoffs. San Diego got screwed by playing 4 teams off byes cross country with a brutal unfair strength of schedule. They are still their record.

Hey, if a team is nothing more than it's record, why don't we just annoint Indy the league champions. After all, they have the best record, so they must be the best team, right? Right?

Of course not. Your entire premise is nothing short of ludicrous, particularly in the NFL with imbalanced scheduling and dramatically different playing conditions from place to place.

My opinion comes from watching both teams, and I feel Houston is the worst team in the league. More importantly, the league feels Houston is the worst team. Thats why they get that #1 pick, ya know.

If you think San Fran is, fine. Someone else can believe New Orleans is, or whomever else they want, and probably justify it via DVOA, Power Rankings, Aikman Stats, Eisenhower briefs or any other system they choose. It doesn't change the simple truth of the situation. A team is its record.

And that's the difference between us. You "feel" one team is better. I look at the data, which tells me which is better. Historically, my method is significantly more useful for predicting performance. Yours excells at making Vegas lots of money.

Now, who gets the worst team pick come the draft, Xao?

The better team, having sacrificed two games in order to do so.

[Lyion]

The Niners traded Rattay, who was their opening day starter. Not Garcia. Jeff was in Cleveland last year, not San Fran. Do you even watch Football or just read stat charts and pretend to have a clue in your proclamation that a 2-14 team is better than one with twice its wins?

Claiming Houston was trying not to win games is your opinion and pretty asstastically unsubstantiated. Have any proof?

I suppose the owner paid the kicker on the side to miss a winning FG? Sorry, I wave the bullshit flag, as would any fan with a clue about the game.

I know the players, read up on potentials, free agency draft choices, offseason programs, injury reports, and keep up with WATCHING the teams, as well as reading other stats and various power rankings. The thing is I understand both sides of the equation. You, apparently, do not which is why you'd be fodder in a really competitive pick league.

Since you didnt bother to join our pick league, I can't say how well you'd do. Maybe next year we'll see.

[xaoshaen]

The Niners traded Rattay, who was their opening day starter. Not Garcia. Jeff was in Cleveland last year, not San Fran. Do you even watch Football or just read stat charts and pretend to have a clue in your proclamation that a 2-14 team is better than one with twice its wins?

Whoops, my bad there. I totally confused one benched ex-Niner quarterback with the other benched ex-Niner quarterback. To be sure, either Garcia or Rattay would have been an improvement over Smith's historically bad (worse than Ryan Leaf!) season, but neither of them could hold down a starting job in the NFL. Claiming they would have made San Fran significantly better is either ludicrous or a stinging indictment of the rest of the team. As I've pointed out before, and you've been entirely unable to refute, a record is just an extremely superficial stat that has little predictive power on its own.

Claiming Houston was trying not to win games is your opinion and pretty asstastically unsubstantiated. Have any proof?

Oh, kind of like claiming San Francisco was "in" more games than Houston, despite an inferior point differential?

I suppose the owner paid the kicker on the side to miss a winning FG? Sorry, I wave the bullshit flag, as would any fan with a clue about the game.

Nope, the owner didn't have to pay the kicker, but most knowledgeable fans, including the guys paid to analyze the NFL would admit that Houston essentially threw two games on ridiculous missed field goals. Unless your name is Jay Feeley, you don't go missing chip shots like that in the NFL, and keep your job to do the same thing a few weeks later.

I know the players, read up on potentials, free agency draft choices, offseason programs, injury reports, and keep up with WATCHING the teams, as well as reading other stats and various power rankings. The thing is I understand both sides of the equation. You, apparently, do not which is why you'd be fodder in a really competitive pick league.

It's fairly obvious that you do not, in fact, know the players or watch games if you honestly thought that San Fran was "in" more games than Houston last year, or that losing Rattay was a major blow to the team. Oddly, I tend to do fairly well in pcik leagues. Must just be luck, eh?

Since you didnt bother to join our pick league, I can't say how well you'd do. Maybe next year we'll see.

Wasn't around to join last year, if I'm available, I'd be happy to play.

[Lyion]

Whoops, my bad there. I totally confused one benched ex-Niner quarterback with the other benched ex-Niner quarterback. To be sure, either Garcia or Rattay would have been an improvement over Smith's historically bad (worse than Ryan Leaf!) season, but neither of them could hold down a starting job in the NFL. Claiming they would have made San Fran significantly better is either ludicrous or a stinging indictment of the rest of the team. As I've pointed out before, and you've been entirely unable to refute, a record is just an extremely superficial stat that has little predictive power on its own.

You admit AJ Smith is bad, but then say he is no worse than Rattay, last years starter for the 9ers who is generally considered to be a decent journeyman QB, which is why Tampa traded for him. That doesn't add up. Rattay gave the 9ers a better chance to win, period. That should not be up for debate.

Let's examine a bit perhaps why the 49ers were more competitive early. Rattay led the team in TD passes despite only being there really for four games. They had 7 total. He had five of them.

They rotated through Rattay, Dorsey, Pickett, and Smith. Despite having no consistency or ANY play from the QB position worth a damn, they still beat the Texans who have a GOOD QB, who played all year.

Now, our argument has been the 49ers were closer to being a good team, than the Texans. Why? because they have more holes filled. Now, anyone with common sense can look at the revolving door at QB and realize if they had kept ONE guy in there all year they would've been a better team. Still a bottom tier team, but better. Consistency at QB is good, as has been proven over and over.

The Texans HAVE a good QB and he played all year. In your mind, they have a better WR than any of the 9ers, in Johnson. Thus, due to the fact they have the worst record, a fired coach, are going to need to implement an entire new coaching system, and arguably have the worst offensive and defensive lineplay in the league, as can be evidenced by Carr getting sacked more than UAW people this year up until they quit throwing the ball, it's pretty easy to opine they are farther away from success than the 9ers, which is what I've done.

You can believe the 9ers are worse, and I respect that, but the simple facts are based on the situations and what each team did this year it's pretty easy to push forward the Texans as the worst team. Despite a solid QB and a standout WR, they were utter garbage. San Fran, even with their QB by tryout, still was more competitive and more winning.

Oh, kind of like claiming San Francisco was "in" more games than Houston, despite an inferior point differential?

Read Above. We've established this. You sound like Matt Leinart after the USC loss. I'm sure USC was the better team. *snicker*

Nope, the owner didn't have to pay the kicker, but most knowledgeable fans, including the guys paid to analyze the NFL would admit that Houston essentially threw two games on ridiculous missed field goals. Unless your name is Jay Feeley, you don't go missing chip shots like that in the NFL, and keep your job to do the same thing a few weeks later.

If you had bothered to watch the game and keep up with the news, you'd know about the severe rain storm, and poor field conditions in San Fran. Field Goals are never give me's, and I'll send you back to all the missed FGs from a variety of people whose names are not Vanderjagt or Vinitieri.

It's fairly obvious that you do not, in fact, know the players or watch games if you honestly thought that San Fran was "in" more games than Houston last year, or that losing Rattay was a major blow to the team. Oddly, I tend to do fairly well in pcik leagues. Must just be luck, eh?

Except you haven't proven that at all. You reference vagaries and declare victory. Odd. Again, you have Matt Leinartitis.

Rattay beat out AJ Smith handily which you'd know if you actually watched the preseason. Once San Fran realized they weren't a playoff team, they did the right thing and traded their journeyman starter and evaluated youth . It is fairly undisputed AJ was a pretty good downgrade from Rattay right now, which you have represented quite well but very strangely used as a defense of your position which is similar to mine, and solely based on opinion.

Wasn't around to join last year, if I'm available, I'd be happy to play.

Then we'll see next year. I won two pick leagues and was second in two others. It doesn't matter until we play each other. Kind of like how Houston and San Fran played each other. Then, after you lose, you can explain how you really won.

[xaoshaen]

You admit AJ Smith is bad, but then say he is no worse than Rattay, last years starter for the 9ers who is generally considered to be a decent journeyman QB, which is why Tampa traded for him. That doesn't add up. Rattay gave the 9ers a better chance to win, period. That should not be up for debate.

Actually, I specifically said that Rattay or Garcia would have been better than Smith. Any quarterback who played in the last decade would have been better than smith. The problem is that neither Rattay nor Garcia were actually NFL-calibre starting quarterbacks. Upgrading from "historically atrocious" to "not good enough to play in the league" isn't going to make a bad team competitive.

Let's examine a bit perhaps why the 49ers were more competitive early. Rattay led the team in TD passes despite only being there really for four games. They had 7 total. He had five of them.

Or, it might have to do with facing St. Louis and Arizona in two of Rattay's four games. You'll note that he threw for a whopping 107 and 126 yards in two of those games, only broke 200 yards once, and was blown out half the time.

They rotated through Rattay, Dorsey, Pickett, and Smith. Despite having no consistency or ANY play from the QB position worth a damn, they still beat the Texans who have a GOOD QB, who played all year.

Yeah, they beat the Texans when Houston honked another chip shot field goal in their quest for the number one pick. There's a reason it was referred to as the Bush bowl.

Now, our argument has been the 49ers were closer to being a good team, than the Texans. Why? because they have more holes filled. Now, anyone with common sense can look at the revolving door at QB and realize if they had kept ONE guy in there all year they would've been a better team. Still a bottom tier team, but better. Consistency at QB is good, as has been proven over and over.

So, Houston has a better quarterback, better running back, better wide receiver, but the Niners have more holes filled? I'll address the lines in a bit, but I enjoy the random assertion that Quarterback consistency is good. Feel free to supply some of the proof you claim is so prevalent. It's not necessarily consistency, but good quarterbacking that is desirous. Quarterback changes are often detrimental, but that's usually because you're replacing your starter with an inferior player due to injury.

The Texans HAVE a good QB and he played all year. In your mind, they have a better WR than any of the 9ers, in Johnson. Thus, due to the fact they have the worst record, a fired coach, are going to need to implement an entire new coaching system, and arguably have the worst offensive and defensive lineplay in the league, as can be evidenced by Carr getting sacked more than UAW people this year up until they quit throwing the ball, it's pretty easy to opine they are farther away from success than the 9ers, which is what I've done.

Yeah, Johnson's superiority to any of the Niner's wide receivers is in my mind. Feel free to make a case otherwise. Firing Dom Capers was a Good Thing. Losing a coach isn't always a problem for a team. Witness Norv Turner, Steve Spurrier, Rick Pitino, Pete Carroll... the list could go on for a very long time. I love how you claim that Carr's sack rate is proof of inferior defensive line play. You do realize that Houston's offensive line graded out better than San Fran's, right? There are two components to O-Line play: run blocking and pass blocking. Houston actually has decent run blocking, while the Niner's were worst in the league. Houston was, again, the worst in the league at pass blocking, but San Fran was the third-worst. They hardly have those holes filled.

As far as defensive lines go, Houston was dead last against the run, while San Francisco was a more respectable 22nd. Against the pass, Houston checked in 8th, however, while SF slummed in at 28th. If you're content wth being 22nd and 28th out of 32, enjoy the progressive seasons of putridity.

You can believe the 9ers are worse, and I respect that, but the simple facts are based on the situations and what each team did this year it's pretty easy to push forward the Texans as the worst team. Despite a solid QB and a standout WR, they were utter garbage. San Fran, even with their QB by tryout, still was more competitive and more winning.

Easy perhaps, but superficial and wrong. San Francisco was not more competetive. They got to play some bad teams and beat them occasionally, but they were also blown out by larger margins, more frequently than was Houston.

Read Above. We've established this. You sound like Matt Leinart after the USC loss. I'm sure USC was the better team. *snicker*

Actually, you haven't established anything. You've ignored the fact that the Niners were whipped harder than the Texans and tried to cover it up by pretending that you'd somehow rebutted it.

If you had bothered to watch the game and keep up with the news, you'd know about the severe rain storm, and poor field conditions in San Fran. Field Goals are never give me's, and I'll send you back to all the missed FGs from a variety of people whose names are not Vanderjagt or Vinitieri.

I find it odd that someone who prides themselves on knowledge of NFL players would trot out the household names instead of the kickers who actually had the best performances: Rackers this year, and Akers a year ago. Field goals in general may not be "give me's", but chip shots, in the NFL, are.

Except you haven't proven that at all. You reference vagaries and declare victory. Odd. Again, you have Matt Leinartitis.

On the contrary, I've referenced concrete stats and performances. The only thing you've come up with is the most superficial of all stats, the record, and unsupport claims about the Niner's supposed superiority in line play.

Rattay beat out AJ Smith handily which you'd know if you actually watched the preseason. Once San Fran realized they weren't a playoff team, they did the right thing and traded their journeyman starter and evaluated youth . It is fairly undisputed AJ was a pretty good downgrade from Rattay right now, which you have represented quite well but very strangely used as a defense of your position which is similar to mine, and solely based on opinion.

Of course Rattay beat out Smith. Smith had the single worst year for a quarterback in the last decade. Luminaries such as Ryan Leaf would have beaten out Smith. This isn't an opinion... it's the result of his on field performance, statistically measured. The problem is that you're placing far too much blame on Smith for the team's struggles. Rattay isn't good enough to keep a starting job in the NFL, and nowhere near good enough to save a team who only had their leading rusher break 100 yeards three times on the season.

Then we'll see next year. I won two pick leagues and was second in two others. It doesn't matter until we play each other. Kind of like how Houston and San Fran played each other. Then, after you lose, you can explain how you really won.

I'm assuming you're being deliberately obtuse. I've never claimed that Houston beat San Francisco, simply that the Texans were a better team over the course of the season. As a true student of the game, you do know that inferior teams can win occasionally in the NFL, right?

[Minrott]

what

[Kramer]

Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO! Houston sucked worsed than San Fran..... NO! San Fran sucked worse than Houston.... NO!

[xaoshaen]

Hey wouldja look at that? My post from yesterday has mysteriously vanished...