Jump to content

Team Records Since 2008


PriMeTiiMe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Team Records from 2008 to 2014 (YTD) (yes = made playoffs at least once in that time) (99 total games)

1. New England 74-25 (yes)

2. Baltimore 64-35 (yes)

3. New Orleans 63-36 (yes)

4. Pittsburgh 63-36 (yes)

5. Atlanta 62-37 (yes)

6. Green Bay 62-37 (yes)

7. Indianapolis 61-38 (yes)

8. San Francisco 58-39-1 (yes)

9. Denver 56-43 (yes)

10. New York Giants 56-43 (yes)

11. San Diego 56-43 (yes)

12. Philadelphia 55-43-1 (yes)

13. Chicago 55-44 (yes)

14. New York Jets 52-47 (yes)

15. Dallas 52-47 (yes)

16. Cincinnati 51-47-1 (yes)

17. Arizona 50-49 (yes)

18. Tennessee 50-49 (yes)

19. Carolina 49-50 (yes)

20. Houston 49-50 (yes)

21. Seattle 49-50 (yes)

22. Minnesota 47-52 (yes)

23. Miami 47-52 (yes)

24. Buffalo 37-62 (no)

25. Washington 37-62 (yes)

26. Tampa Bay 37-62 (no)

27. Kansas City 36-63 (yes)

28. Oakland 34-65 (no)

29. Detroit 31-68 (yes)

30. Jacksonville 31-68 (no)

31. Cleveland 28-71 (no)

32. St. Louis 27-71-1 (no)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Twice the Falcons have earned the #1 seed in the NFC, and thus earned a bye. One of those times (2012), they won the divisional round game to advance to the NFCCG - as critics like to note, their only playoff win during that time. But if instead of being the #1 seed those two seasons, they had finished as the 3rd seed (earning home field, but having to play on wildcard weekend) and won their first game only to lose their second, many of the critics would claim they had better results (2 playoff wins instead of just 1), even though they would not have advanced as far (losing in the 2nd round both times). That shows how myopic it is to only look at total playoff W-L rather than playoff seeding due to regular season success being factored in.

Since 2008, i.e., under the current regime, the Falcons have clearly been one of the top 8-10 teams in the NFL, a period of sustained success unparalleled in the franchise's history. Too bad some so-called Falcons "fans" don't appreciate that, or even acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twice the Falcons have earned the #1 seed in the NFC, and thus earned a bye. One of those times (2012), they won the divisional round game to advance to the NFCCG - as critics like to note, their only playoff win during that time. But if instead of being the #1 seed those two seasons, they had finished as the 3rd seed (earning home field, but having to play on wildcard weekend) and won their first game only to lose their second, many of the critics would claim they had better results (2 playoff wins instead of just 1), even though they would not have advanced as far (losing in the 2nd round both times). That shows how myopic it is to only look at total playoff W-L rather than playoff seeding due to regular season success being factored in.

Since 2008, i.e., under the current regime, the Falcons have clearly been one of the top 8-10 teams in the NFL, a period of sustained success unparalleled in the franchise's history. Too bad some so-called Falcons "fans" don't appreciate that, or even acknowledge it.

It's a fine line. Some believe that "good" is the enemy of "great". I appreciate what Smitty & co. have done because I've been on board for 40+ years. By the same token, I would like to see us either get hot at the right time or catch the same breaks that other teams seem to have caught to beat us in the playoffs. With that said, I'm not the one to wish ill on my team.

Some won't admit to it, but they've painted themselves into corners with dire predictions ("fire Smitty, we'll never win with him" or "TD doesn't know how to build a team") and would prefer that we bomb again this year to see changes made. I'll never root against the Falcons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont consider 1 playoff win since 2008 as "successfull".

Jim Mora Jr had 1 playoff win, Reeves reached the Superbowl and yet those teams weren't successful so why is this team successful? Getting stomped by the Packers and the Giants isn't successful. I dont care about the regular season winning percentage.. I care about playoff wins, what is the point of winning all these regular season games if the team can't win in the playoffs? The point is to win in the playoffs.. not to have a good regular season and then go one and done.

What's the point of winning playoffs if you don't win the SB? 1 playoff win vs 5 playoff wins, is there a different to you? If no then it's moot to say you care about playoff wins instead of regular season wins, but if yes then be prepare to be miserable for the rest of your life because it's possible you might not see your team win a SB in your lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fine line. Some believe that "good" is the enemy of "great". I appreciate what Smitty & co. have done because I've been on board for 40+ years. By the same token, I would like to see us either get hot at the right time or catch the same breaks that other teams seem to have caught to beat us in the playoffs. With that said, I'm not the one to wish ill on my team.

Some won't admit to it, but they've painted themselves into corners with dire predictions ("fire Smitty, we'll never win with him" or "TD doesn't know how to build a team") and would prefer that we bomb again this year to see changes made. I'll never root against the Falcons.

I have made those claims that the Falcons will never win the Super Bowl with Thomas Dimitroff and Mike Smith around but that doesn't mean I'm rooting for that to happen so I'll be right. No way in heIl would I ever root for the Falcons to lose. Even last year when some dumbasses on here were rooting for the Falcons to lose so they would have a better draft pick I was still rooting for them to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point of winning playoffs if you don't win the SB? 1 playoff win vs 5 playoff wins, is there a different to you? If no then it's moot to say you care about playoff wins instead of regular season wins, but if yes then be prepare to be miserable for the rest of your life because it's possible you might not see your team win a SB in your lifetime.

You've got him cornered, he's somewhere hiding underneath a computer desk hoping this will all go away.

To get to the Super Bowl, the fastest way is to win your division, get a bye week, win in the NFCCG. This is the process, if you get your bye week, that *is* an advance in playoffs by by passing the wildcard game.

Getting to the Super Bowl is a process, you have to first win in regular season which we do, and we have had a legitimate shot every year since 2008 except for 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got him cornered, he's somewhere hiding underneath a computer desk hoping this will all go away.

To get to the Super Bowl, the fastest way is to win your division, get a bye week, win in the NFCCG. This is the process, if you get your bye week, that *is* an advance in playoffs by by passing the wildcard game.

Getting to the Super Bowl is a process, you have to first win in regular season which we do, and we have had a legitimate shot every year since 2008 except for 2013.

You're correct. It is a process. You just hope it doesn't take you this long.

Year 1 - Make Playoffs

Year 5 - Win First Playoff Game

Year 10 - Win Second Playoff Game???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest facelessman07

You're correct. It is a process. You just hope it doesn't take you this long.

Year 1 - Make Playoffs

Year 5 - Win First Playoff Game

Year 10 - Win Second Playoff Game???

So we'll win the Super Bowl in 2023 by that logic lol

Time to start selling t-shirts!

Edited by facelessman07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you rather have 1 playoff win or 5 playoff wins?

I want to see my team win a SB.. thats it. Having a team win CONSISTENTLY in the playoffs and not having to watch your team get bounced out of the playoffs every year without winning at LEAST one game sucks.

Everyone here states how dangerous this team is..and yet if this team goes one and done in the playoffs.. that means this season is a failure. Thats not success. Jim Mora Jr. stomped the Rams ands then lost to the Eagles.. That is better than watching your team lost 24-2 to the Giants. But does anyone state how Jim Mora Jr's teams were successful?

But yes not winning the superbowl is a failure... but at least win a playoff game!!!

So when the 4th best W/L record in the NFL since 2008 record is presented to you, you grouse that Falcons stellar regular season W/L record means nothing to you, that all that matters is winning a Super Bowl. You then proceed to carp on the playoff W/L record implying these are very important. Your argument is inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your team wins this consistently, makes the playoffs most years, and most importantly you were 10 yards form a Super Bowl invitation as recent as 2012, you do not cut and run, you make adjustments.

Those of us who have been NFL fans for 5 decades know all to well about the grass being greener on the other side. Being a Falcon fan in the decades preceding 2008 when TD and Smitty got here was a very difficult endeavor indeed. Rarely did we even have a chance at a winning season, let alone have to worry about a playoff record. Those of us enduring decades of never having back to back winning seasons since 1967 know all about losing with revolving coaching staffs and GMs, rebuilding that takes years and ultimately fails......,.I welcome all this winning and as a fan I support these guys doing all they can to push us to the next level of winning a Super Bowl. You want to cut and run because you think the grass is greener, but more often than not its all weeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team Records from 2008 to 2014 (YTD) (yes = made playoffs at least once in that time) (99 total games)

1. New England 74-25 (yes)

2. Baltimore 64-35 (yes)

3. New Orleans 63-36 (yes)

4. Pittsburgh 63-36 (yes)

5. Atlanta 62-37 (yes)

6. Green Bay 62-37 (yes)

7. Indianapolis 61-38 (yes)

8. San Francisco 58-39-1 (yes)

9. Denver 56-43 (yes)

10. New York Giants 56-43 (yes)

11. San Diego 56-43 (yes)

12. Philadelphia 55-43-1 (yes)

13. Chicago 55-44 (yes)

14. New York Jets 52-47 (yes)

15. Dallas 52-47 (yes)

16. Cincinnati 51-47-1 (yes)

17. Arizona 50-49 (yes)

18. Tennessee 50-49 (yes)

19. Carolina 49-50 (yes)

20. Houston 49-50 (yes)

21. Seattle 49-50 (yes)

22. Minnesota 47-52 (yes)

23. Miami 47-52 (yes)

24. Buffalo 37-62 (no)

25. Washington 37-62 (yes)

26. Tampa Bay 37-62 (no)

27. Kansas City 36-63 (yes)

28. Oakland 34-65 (no)

29. Detroit 31-68 (yes)

30. Jacksonville 31-68 (no)

31. Cleveland 28-71 (no)

32. St. Louis 27-71-1 (no)

I immediately saw something that stood out to me in the top 10 of that list. Keeping the same order and reg season W-L record making only one distinction an appearance in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. The list would look like this.

1. New England 74-25 (yes)

2. Baltimore 64-35 (yes)

3. New Orleans 63-36 (yes)

4. Pittsburgh 63-36 (yes)

5. Atlanta 62-37 (NO)

6. Green Bay 62-37 (yes)

7. Indianapolis 61-38 (yes)

8. San Francisco 58-39-1 (yes)

9. Denver 56-43 (yes)

10. New York Giants 56-43 (yes)

Interestingly enough, the majority of those 10 not only played in the Super Bowl but won within the last 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I immediately saw something that stood out to me in the top 10 of that list. Keeping the same order and reg season W-L record making only one distinction an appearance in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. The list would look like this.

1. New England 74-25 (yes)

2. Baltimore 64-35 (yes)

3. New Orleans 63-36 (yes)

4. Pittsburgh 63-36 (yes)

5. Atlanta 62-37 (NO)

6. Green Bay 62-37 (yes)

7. Indianapolis 61-38 (yes)

8. San Francisco 58-39-1 (yes)

9. Denver 56-43 (yes)

10. New York Giants 56-43 (yes)

Interestingly enough, the majority of those 10 not only played in the Super Bowl but won within the last 10.

It is interesting. Also interesting is that our record against the other 9 teams in the top 10 in this period is 12-20.

It is still impressive record for a team that has been consistently bad over years though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting. Also interesting is that our record against the other 9 teams in the top 10 in this period is 12-20.

It is still impressive record for a team that has been consistently bad over years though.

Shhh! You're not suppose to point out facts like the Falcons haven't done well against the other top teams in the NFL since 2008. Nope. You're suppose to just brag about the Falcons having the 4th best regular record in the NFL since 2008 because that's what "real" fans do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I immediately saw something that stood out to me in the top 10 of that list. Keeping the same order and reg season W-L record making only one distinction an appearance in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. The list would look like this.

1.    New England 74-25 (yes)

2.    Baltimore 64-35 (yes)

3.    New Orleans 63-36 (yes)

4.    Pittsburgh 63-36 (yes)

5.    Atlanta 62-37 (NO)

6.    Green Bay 62-37 (yes)

7.    Indianapolis 61-38 (yes)

8.    San Francisco 58-39-1 (yes)

9.    Denver 56-43 (yes)

10.    New York Giants 56-43 (yes)

Interestingly enough, the majority of those 10 not only played in the Super Bowl but won within the last 10.

This shows you how close we are. You may want to cut and run, but its obvious to me we have been and continue to be on the brink. A 10 yard pass here, a TD there and we are in....that's how close we are. It would be foolhardy to cut and run now that you've pointed out how close we really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shows you how close we are. You may want to cut and run, but its obvious to me we have been and continue to be on the brink. A 10 yard pass here, a TD there and we are in....that's how close we are. It would be foolhardy to cut and run now that you've pointed out how close we really are.

Not when our record against the other teams on that list is so poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shows you how close we are. You may want to cut and run, but its obvious to me we have been and continue to be on the brink. A 10 yard pass here, a TD there and we are in....that's how close we are. It would be foolhardy to cut and run now that you've pointed out how close we really are.

Cut and run? I hope you are not referring to my penchant for the Falcons. I expect more post season failure this year and yet I have season tickets this year.

What this shows is how far we really are, and that it's time for management to move on.

I've watched this team for decades. I'm not one to say that I haven't enjoyed the regular season success of recent years or that it means nothing to me. I have absolutely enjoyed the winning. But that does not impair my ability to distinguish post season failure from success, as it appears to have affected you.

What I don't enjoy is the clear and unmistakable recognition that the Falcons of Smith have failed to accomplish what every other team in that top 10 with similar or better and a even a few cases lesser regular season records have accomplished in a similar time frame during the post season.

I noticed you went to the hypothetical in saying that the Falcons were but ten yards from the Super Bowl as you say. That's fine but then turnabout is fair play, conversely they were also one missed Matt Bryant FG from the even worse distinction being the only team among that list of top ten in recent years to lose EVERY playoff game. Of course neither happened and we are where we are.

I don't need to deal in the hypothetical to make a point as you have. Every other team (and their coach who took them to the SB) among those top ten have post season winning percentages above .500 during Mike Smith's time here and every single one of those coaches whose teams are listed there appeared in the Super Bowl within five years from when they were first hired at that team - (that would be Dungy & Caldwell, not Pagano for Indy).

At seven years Smith is well beyond a five year historical norm in which nearly every Super Bowl coach (over 60 of them winning & losing side) since free agency (nearly 40 years) appeared in the title game within five years of hire at the team that played in the championship. There are people who and look at that and only experience denial. As a long time fan of this team I don't like it myself, but I'm not in denial over it, and a generous measure of time spanning 40 years shows how long it historically takes for coaches to at a minimum appear in the (and many times win ) championship is far more suitable a benchmark for me to assess success or failure (five years from hire at a team), than to call for complete coaching overhauls as some here do in year three or cling on desperately on to the romanticized notion that we are close in year seven as you are, when history says the opposite. Mike Smith is a failure in the post season relative to not only his contemporary peers who have coached in Super Bowl since he's been in Atlanta but to his coaching peers of the past four decades who also coached in the title game. It has gotten to the point where it is foolhardy to stay with one whose post season failure is only surpassed by Marvin Lewis among actives.

I've posted most of this before, I did a topic back some months, maybe you didn't see it but I actually looked at quite a bit of historical record on coaches in Super Bowls. I doubt you would enjoy it (I personally don't) but what I found and posted was quite accurate. Check my topics if you're so inclined, I don't start many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut and run? I hope you are not referring to my penchant for the Falcons. I expect more post season failure this year and yet I have season tickets this year.

What this shows is how far we really are, and that it's time for management to move on.

I've watched this team for decades. I'm not one to say that I haven't enjoyed the regular season success of recent years or that it means nothing to me. I have absolutely enjoyed the winning. But that does not impair my ability to distinguish post season failure from success, as it appears to have affected you.

What I don't enjoy is the clear and unmistakable recognition that the Falcons of Smith have failed to accomplish what every other team in that top 10 with similar or better and a even a few cases lesser regular season records have accomplished in a similar time frame during the post season.

I noticed you went to the hypothetical in saying that the Falcons were but ten yards from the Super Bowl as you say. That's fine but then turnabout is fair play, conversely they were also one missed Matt Bryant FG from the even worse distinction being the only team among that list of top ten in recent years to lose EVERY playoff game. Of course neither happened and we are where we are.

I don't need to deal in the hypothetical to make a point as you have. Every other team (and their coach who took them to the SB) among those top ten have post season winning percentages above .500 during Mike Smith's time here and every single one of those coaches whose teams are listed there appeared in the Super Bowl within five years from when they were first hired at that team - (that would be Dungy & Caldwell, not Pagano for Indy).

At seven years Smith is well beyond a five year historical norm in which nearly every Super Bowl coach (over 60 of them winning & losing side) since free agency (nearly 40 years) appeared in the title game within five years of hire at the team that played in the championship. There are people who and look at that and only experience denial. As a long time fan of this team I don't like it myself, but I'm not in denial over it, and a generous measure of time spanning 40 years shows how long it historically takes for coaches to at a minimum appear in the (and many times win ) championship is far more suitable a benchmark for me to assess success or failure (five years from hire at a team), than to call for complete coaching overhauls as some here do in year three or cling on desperately on to the romanticized notion that we are close in year seven as you are, when history says the opposite. Mike Smith is a failure in the post season relative to not only his contemporary peers who have coached in Super Bowl since he's been in Atlanta but to his coaching peers of the past four decades who also coached in the title game. It has gotten to the point where it is foolhardy to stay with one whose post season failure is only surpassed by Marvin Lewis among actives.

I've posted most of this before, I did a topic back some months, maybe you didn't see it but I actually looked at quite a bit of historical record on coaches in Super Bowls. I doubt you would enjoy it (I personally don't) but what I found and posted was quite accurate. Check my topics if you're so inclined, I don't start many.

Unfortunately some here can't handle the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...