Winless 0-4 PreSeason stats since 1980

[Cavy]

I don't forsee it happening but you never know..the Packers offense is really good, but that was still an awful performance by the Saints Defense, and kickoff coverage..sloppy tackling and what not

their offense is good at always, but that defense needs work

i agree, it the saints do fail to make the postseason, itll be because of their defense. I cant wait to see JJ go up against pat robinson.

[Jersey Falcons Fan]

Here is interview about our preseason from Thomas Dimitroff on The Herd on ESPN yesterday. This will make you feel better.

TD interview on TheHerd

Edited September 9, 2011 by Jersey Falcons Fan

[Guest Big A]

Here is a stat for you:

Since the 12 team format in 1990, 47 teams have started 0-1 and still made the playoffs. That's 18.7%

The stats look bad for you New Orleans.

Last year, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, and Colts all started 0-1. Saints will be fine, this was their toughest game and they only came up inches short as opposed to Falcons who were playing against backups by 3rd quarter since they were losing so bad,

Let's see how the Falcons will match up with Pack or Saints this year? Ivory and Will Smith will be back by the time we meet as well as the new defensive guys will have more time together by then. Looks at the numerous "I'm scared of Packers and Saints " threads that popped up here since last night if you think there is concern on part of Saints fans.

There were at least 20 threads here about the meaning of preseason records which is why I posted info as was said on sports center this morning as other poster mentioned, dig up what ever stats you want from whatever period, and you can make anything look like anything, at least my stats are straight from ESPN.

Further, if you want to limit preseason records to 2000 and bring up 8 teams to make your point, you fail to address what I said earlier, two of those are Colt teams led by Manning, Pats team led by Brady, and '09 Cardinals team led by Kurt Warner, three HOF QBs in their prime! Ryan is not in same category as these guys currently.

[Cavy]

Last year, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, and Colts all started 0-1. Saints will be fine, this was their toughest game and they only came up inches short as opposed to Falcons who were playing against backups by 3rd quarter since they were losing so bad,

Let's see how the Falcons will match up with Pack or Saints this year? Ivory and Will Smith will be back by the time we meet as well as the new defensive guys will have more time together by then. Looks at the numerous "I'm scared of Packers and Saints " threads that popped up here since last night if you think there is concern on part of Saints fans.

There were at least 20 threads here about the meaning of preseason records which is why I posted info as was said on sports center this morning as other poster mentioned, dig up what ever stats you want from whatever period, and you can make anything look like anything, at least my stats are straight from ESPN.

Further, if you want to limit preseason records to 2000 and bring up 8 teams to make your point, you fail to address what I said earlier, two of those are Colt teams led by Manning, Pats team led by Brady, and '09 Cardinals team led by Kurt Warner, three HOF QBs in their prime! Ryan is not in same category as these guys currently.

again, a saints fan hanging his hat on our playoff loss 8 MONTHS AGO.

if youre putting serious stock into the preseason, youre very naive.

[delaigle]

2011-1980=31years

31x4= 124 games per year per team

124 x 16 =1984 games total (use 16 here because 2 teams per game)

54/1984 = 0.027

0.027 x 100 = 2.7%

ADDED So that 57% of the 2.7% of all games

He is talking about TRENDS using less than 3% of the entire sample

or

(54+51)/1984 = 5.3% of the entire sample

not a good way to do this

Edited September 9, 2011 by delaigle

[Cavy]

And whose to say the falcons will fall into your stat category? if its not a 100% sure thing, then theres always a possibility to beat the stats.

and theres always a possibility to prove you wrong, big arse.

[Tandy]

Last year, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, and Colts all started 0-1. Saints will be fine, this was their toughest game and they only came up inches short as opposed to Falcons who were playing against backups by 3rd quarter since they were losing so bad,

Let's see how the Falcons will match up with Pack or Saints this year? Ivory and Will Smith will be back by the time we meet as well as the new defensive guys will have more time together by then. Looks at the numerous "I'm scared of Packers and Saints " threads that popped up here since last night if you think there is concern on part of Saints fans.

There were at least 20 threads here about the meaning of preseason records which is why I posted info as was said on sports center this morning as other poster mentioned, dig up what ever stats you want from whatever period, and you can make anything look like anything, at least my stats are straight from ESPN.

Further, if you want to limit preseason records to 2000 and bring up 8 teams to make your point, you fail to address what I said earlier, two of those are Colt teams led by Manning, Pats team led by Brady, and '09 Cardinals team led by Kurt Warner, three HOF QBs in their prime! Ryan is not in same category as these guys currently.

I counted those 4 teams in the total - so it's still 18%, no matter how you spin it.

Preseason is over. Guess what? So is last year. This year is on.

And by the way - if you want to exaggerate with lies - try it with someone who wasn't at the game. The 1st string of the Packers played up until they had Starks running the ball with a little over 5 minutes left in the game - then they had Flynn kneel down on the final.

That 3rd string crap is just fish story lies you guys came up with. I guess it's ok for me to say that Lynch ran 3 or 4 67 yard runs on you guys at the end of your playoff game, right?

Come 'on man - at least get your facts straight.

Further - I don't use preseason games as a basis for anything - I know a little more about football than that. So - don't know who you were addressing - but it wasn't me. The stats I gave are about REAL football - not evaluation scrimmages.

[UndisputedChamp]

Why isn't this guy banned yet? If you post one tiny negative thing about the saints your banned forever. He really needs to be banned.

[King Dre]

Last year, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, and Colts all started 0-1. Saints will be fine, this was their toughest game and they only came up inches short as opposed to Falcons who were playing against backups by 3rd quarter since they were losing so bad,

Let's see how the Falcons will match up with Pack or Saints this year? Ivory and Will Smith will be back by the time we meet as well as the new defensive guys will have more time together by then. Looks at the numerous "I'm scared of Packers and Saints " threads that popped up here since last night if you think there is concern on part of Saints fans.

There were at least 20 threads here about the meaning of preseason records which is why I posted info as was said on sports center this morning as other poster mentioned, dig up what ever stats you want from whatever period, and you can make anything look like anything, at least my stats are straight from ESPN.

Further, if you want to limit preseason records to 2000 and bring up 8 teams to make your point, you fail to address what I said earlier, two of those are Colt teams led by Manning, Pats team led by Brady, and '09 Cardinals team led by Kurt Warner, three HOF QBs in their prime! Ryan is not in same category as these guys currently.

What a butt-hurt response.

[Wild Bill]

These are the stats since 1980 for teams the went undefeated (4-0) in preseason and winless (0-4)

4-0 undefeated preseason teams since 1980 =54

31 of those 54 teams MADE playoffs

57% made Playoffs

0-4 winless preseason teams since 1980 = 51

8 of those 51 teams MADE playoffs

16% made playoffs

Stats don't look good for Falcons this year so far.

Preseason record doesn't reflect regular-season success

By Pat Kirwan NFL.com

Senior Analyst

Published: Nov. 18, 2008 at 07:16 p.m.

Updated: Aug. 28, 2007 at 02:02 p.m.

The third weekend of the preseason is hyped as the week we all get a great glimpse of what teams will really look like when the regular season rolls around. The starters are supposed to play at least a half of the game and possibly the first series of the third quarter. Do yourself a big favor, though: Don't read too much into the final score.

Settling roster spots and position battles take precedence over wins and losses this time of year. For example, Oakland continues its quarterback rotation and this week Daunte Culpepper gets the start after Josh McCown started the first game and Andrew Walter went first last week. Every coach likes to win, but there is very little research to support the idea that preseason football is a time to "teach" winning. The numbers say something quite different, in fact. I'm sure the fans in Detroit, Chicago, Miami, and Dallas are excited by the 2-0 start and the possibility of a 4-0 preseason record, but don't make those Super Bowl plans just yet; an undefeated preseason does not equate to a successful regular season.

Last year was a perfect case in point. Not one division winner had a winning record in the preseason.

New England Patriots

2-2

Baltimore Ravens

2-2

Indianapolis Colts

1-3

San Diego Chargers

2-2

Philadelphia Eagles

2-3

Chicago Bears

2-2

New Orleans Saints

1-3

Seattle Seahawks

2-2

If you go back and look at the division winners over the last three years, it's clear that winning in preseason isn't very significant. There have been 24 division winners in three years and the number of those teams that had a winning record in the preseason: 4.

Lets take it a step further and look at the significance of an undefeated preseason. Carolina, Cincinnati and the New York Giants all posted 4-0 preseason records last summer, leading to heightened expectations from fans and media alike. Lots of people proclaimed the Panthers were headed to the Super Bowl, the Bengals could outscore any team in the NFL and the Giants were building a dynasty. All three teams finished 8-8.

Since 2003, nine teams wrapped up the August schedule 4-0 and only four of them produced winning record in the fall.

The Colts have won four straight AFC South titles and, of course, are the reigning world champions. Their preseason record during that four-year run is 5-12. In other words, nobody should be alarmed that they are 0-2 right now. The Eagles have won the NFC East three of the last four years; during those championship seasons, they managed to deliver a combined 4-9 summer record. The Panthers have gone undefeated in the preseason in three of the last four years. A perfect 12-0 and only once in those three years (2003) did it translate into a division title. The only year they didn't go undefeated in the dress rehearsal season was 2005 when they finished at 2-2. And they made the playoffs that year as a wild card.

I'm not trying to rain on the parade of those teams on their way to a winning preseason. But when I hear people say that young coach got his first win the other night or "he teaches his team how to win" or "that kind of effort is going to change the culture in the locker room," I must send up the yellow caution flag. I was with the Jets one year when we went 5-0 in the preseason and a few months later we were all looking around wondering how we went 6-10 during the real season.

Enjoy the third weekend of preseason football but don't draw any conclusions about the regular season from what you see on the scoreboard. Did the Saints' 1-3 record last summer leave anyone thinking they would be the story of the year in the NFL?

http://www.nfl.com/preseason/story/09000d5d801bf764/article/preseason-record-doesnt-reflect-regularseason-success

[Guest Big A]

2011-1980=31years

31x4= 124 games per year per team

124 x 16 =1984 games total (use 16 here because 2 teams per game)

54/1984 = 0.027

0.027 x 100 = 2.7%

ADDED So that 57% of the 2.7% of all games

He is talking about TRENDS using less than 3% of the entire sample

or

(54+51)/1984 = 5.3% of the entire sample

not a good way to do this

Your taking team, dividing by number of total games played over entire sample and then calling that the trend!? Where did you take your statistics course? The sample are not related at all to total games play over period because we are only comparing result, ie, 0-4 teams or 4-0 teams, so that would be 32 results per year multiplied by 31 years.

Since you say (51+54)/1984 and just derive 5.3% out of it, yet you can even go back to basic algebra and know you can only divide like amounts. The 51 and 54 numbers were representative of teams with 0-4 or 4-0 records and thus each one represents a 4 game sample. So you take 4 game sample amount and divide that by total game amounts and actually believe you have come up with something that makes sense? 51+54=105 4 game samples, then 105 x 4 = 420 games. Then, if you think it means something, 420/1984. Which is not equal to a 2.7% sample size!

OWNED!

I loved the moron poster after that who just saw a bunch of random numbers and was like " he showed you". PATHETIC!

[Carl927]

Your taking team, dividing by number of total games played over entire sample and then calling that the trend!? Where did you take your statistics course? The sample are not related at all to total games play over period because we are only comparing result, ie, 0-4 teams or 4-0 teams, so that would be 32 results per year multiplied by 31 years.

Since you say (51+54)/1984 and just derive 5.3% out of it, yet you can even go back to basic algebra and know you can only divide like amounts. The 51 and 54 numbers were representative of teams with 0-4 or 4-0 records and thus each one represents a 4 game sample. So you take 4 game sample amount and divide that by total game amounts and actually believe you have come up with something that makes sense? 51+54=105 4 game samples, then 105 x 4 = 420 games. Then, if you think it means something, 420/1984. Which is not equal to a 2.7% sample size!

OWNED!

I loved the moron poster after that who just saw a bunch of random numbers and was like " he showed you". PATHETIC!

Use a different sampling and you'll get different results. I realize the 11th grade is an exciting time, but you need to learn to keep statistics in perspective. A team from the 80's doesn't correlate well with a team from today. It's a different league with different rules.

Use a sampling of one year and every team who went winless in the preseason made the postseason ( Colts and Bears.) Jump back to include five years and that 100% changes to 33%. You must go way back to get a tiny correlation - which is what you did.

It's an attempt to troll, and it's a fail.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Carl927

[TeamPlayer1]

How in the world can a bag head trash talk another team when if you lose the worst you can be is even!!!!

[phattywankenobi]

You get it handed to you again and again and again. Know when to stay down troll boy.

[alwaysfallforward]

Last year, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, and Colts all started 0-1. Saints will be fine, this was their toughest game and they only came up inches short as opposed to Falcons who were playing against backups by 3rd quarter since they were losing so bad,

Let's see how the Falcons will match up with Pack or Saints this year? Ivory and Will Smith will be back by the time we meet as well as the new defensive guys will have more time together by then. Looks at the numerous "I'm scared of Packers and Saints " threads that popped up here since last night if you think there is concern on part of Saints fans.

There were at least 20 threads here about the meaning of preseason records which is why I posted info as was said on sports center this morning as other poster mentioned, dig up what ever stats you want from whatever period, and you can make anything look like anything, at least my stats are straight from ESPN.

Further, if you want to limit preseason records to 2000 and bring up 8 teams to make your point, you fail to address what I said earlier, two of those are Colt teams led by Manning, Pats team led by Brady, and '09 Cardinals team led by Kurt Warner, three HOF QBs in their prime! Ryan is not in same category as these guys currently.

considering we beat them in the regular season..perhaps the difference in the score of those 2 games isn't that significant

if we beat them in the reg.season they aren't that much better than us if any..we just laid an egg...we just need to approach it better and learn from last game..and hopefully not repeat in the playoffs this year

[Super Mario]

Here is a stat for you:

Since the 12 team format in 1990, 47 teams have started 0-1 and still made the playoffs. That's 18.7%

The stats look bad for you New Orleans.

Not too shabby considering during this time only 37.7% make it to the playoffs anyways. That means that the Saints actually have only decreased their chances at making the playoffs by 0.3%.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Vick to Julio

[Guest JoeSr]

Big A, you can manipulate stats to suit your agenda. You have to be pretty pathetic to start reaching into pre-season stats and records. Never have I ever seen anyone do this before, but leave it up to an Aint to do something so lame and pathetic like abrahamburger.

[UtahDirtyBird]

These are the stats since 1980 for teams the went undefeated (4-0) in preseason and winless (0-4)

4-0 undefeated preseason teams since 1980 =54

31 of those 54 teams MADE playoffs

57% made Playoffs

0-4 winless preseason teams since 1980 = 51

8 of those 51 teams MADE playoffs

16% made playoffs

Stats don't look good for Falcons this year so far.

?????

Are you kidding me? You must be utterly ********, dude. Preseason W-L don't mean dookie in the regular season. NO ONE goes all-out to go undefeated in the preseason. It happens by accident. Geez what a dumb post.

I'm not even gonna waste my time reading the responses to your post bcuz any other Falcons fan will tell you the same thing--that we aren't worried about our preseason record.