Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 98 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
tiger (1653 D)
11 Nov 13 UTC
NEW team game!!!!!! :D XDXD
Hey guys! My exams are almost over, and I thought I'd celebrate by creating a new team game! Find a partner and sign up!
220 replies
Open
hmcclain (945 D)
14 Jan 14 UTC
Team Game-2
'gameID=[number]' Team game-2 Sign up here with a partner. The map is World War IV version 6.2, so there will be 18 teams. I already have a teammate, so 17 spots remaining. It is a fight to the death, no SC winning. Good luck to all that sign up
1 reply
Open
Jimbozig (1179 D)
13 Jan 14 UTC
Server error - paused games
See inside.
2 replies
Open
Hirnsaege (1903 D)
13 Jan 14 UTC
Please save our game and replace a multi ...
gameID=17693
Almo was left due to a multi-accounter ...
the game just started, so positions are yet good to fill in for anyone who wants to save this game for us.
1 reply
Open
Anon (?? D)
10 Jan 14 UTC
Chaos!!!
Awesome map variant, chaos! Click here to check it out: gameID=17570 please join our game.
3 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
09 Jan 14 UTC
replacement for excellent position needed
0 replies
Open
Decima Legio (1987 D)
26 Nov 13 UTC
Fogboat invitational: type your daily memories. Game-2
Classic - Fog of War gunboat, type your notes during the game.
Details inside.
50 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
06 Jan 14 UTC
Need a replacement
1 reply
Open
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
06 Jan 14 UTC
Imperial II question
When a country goes CD and units have to be dibanded in the build phase, usually the units that are furthest away from the own HSCs are being disbanded, right?
But as you can build in every HSC you own. So what happens there?
7 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
07 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
chaos
New chaos map! gameID=17570
0 replies
Open
steephie22 (933 D)
14 Dec 13 UTC
Currency/valuta diplomacy game
I know something like this has been done before, but then there were effectively 2 games being played. I want to make it one game. The basic was that next to playing on the board you trade in valuta.
25 replies
Open
kikker82 (1102 D)
01 Jan 14 UTC
Treaty Game
Hey folks. I'm trying to get a treaty game going. It's WW2 so I just need 4 more players. Rules and link will follow. PM me for password.
8 replies
Open
kaner406 (2181 D Mod (B))
29 Dec 13 UTC
wwIV sealanes
I wanted to ask what people felt about including a transform option in this variant?
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/download/file.php?id=638
27 replies
Open
Andy olla (917 D)
31 Dec 13 UTC
Andy olla
Send out your best vDiplomacy!
28 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
24 Dec 13 UTC
The Colonial Fight to the Death
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=17441

A colonial gunboat game. Full NMR protection, need ALL SCs to win. Let's do this.
2 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
01 Jan 14 UTC
Replacement needed. Good position.
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=17368
0 replies
Open
kikker82 (1102 D)
01 Jan 14 UTC
not Wilsonian...or is it?
I know I saw something about it in the forums a long time ago. What is the rules variant where you have to declare war before you can attack a player? I wanna say Wilsonian but I think that's gunboat. Can someone enlighten me?
5 replies
Open
Jonathan (1002 D)
29 Dec 13 UTC
Move tester
Hi guys, does anyone know an applet/website where I can test moves to see the outcome? I am uncertain about some situations in my current game and want to find out what the best move would be.

Thanks
3 replies
Open
David E. Cohen (1000 D)
13 Sep 13 UTC
New Variants in Development
Since some of my variants are played here, I wanted to let you all know I have another "one and a half" variants in development, the "one" being Spice Islands, (Southeast Asia and the adjacent Islands), and the "half" being East Indies (a combination of my existing Maharajah's variant with Spice Islands). Starting maps can be found at http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/id23.html . I'd love to get comments, so I can make improvements before I finalize the maps.
89 replies
Open
Sumner (1001 D)
28 Dec 13 UTC
New Game :1914!
We need four more players to join the 1914 game.
7 replies
Open
SandgooseXXI (1294 D)
28 Dec 13 UTC
New Year kickoff
Hey all, to get this new year started, I'd like to invite persons who would like to spend 200+ points on a classic semi-anon diplomacy game. If you are interested, please post within, nothing like a new years resolution to blow money!
1 reply
Open
GunLoader85 (1051 D)
27 Dec 13 UTC
Looking for a sub
I am looking for a sub from tomorrow until tuesday.


1 reply
Open
~ Diplomat ~ (1036 D X)
25 Dec 13 UTC
Any one for a live game now?
Please?
0 replies
Open
pyrhos (1268 D)
23 Dec 13 UTC
(+2)
merry Christmas all :D
Thanks all vdip players for a wonderful year with lots of fun games! Thanks all and have a good time with your families :D
14 replies
Open
Hypoguy (1613 D)
23 Dec 13 UTC
Looking for a stand-in
Looking for someone to watch over two of my games for a few days (between Christmas and NewYear). I'm happy to return the favour on another occasion next year. Anyone?
0 replies
Open
sinax (1006 D)
21 Dec 13 UTC
it's cool!!!!!!
hey guys! ROMEWARD BOUND is waiting you! it'scool, and you can amuse yourself in a map very dufferent from the classic one!

come in! we need only 6 players more among 12 to start!
3 replies
Open
nesdunk14 (767 D)
21 Dec 13 UTC
Imagonnalose second bracket
Hey all, just thought maybe more people wanted to play one on one than were able to fit in the first bracket. For all the rules, see Imagonnalose's post below. Please write here for slot requests.
0 replies
Open
sinax (1006 D)
21 Dec 13 UTC
(+1)
join us!!!!
Palimpsest needs only 2 players more to start!!!!

it's a huge and cool game: join us!!!!!
1 reply
Open
Anon (?? D)
21 Dec 13 UTC
fog of war game
Awesome mode: fog of war. Classic map, only 2 coin bet. Still need 4 people, choose your own country. First come, first serve! gameID=17370
0 replies
Open
Imagonnalose (992 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
Super Bowl 2014
So I've got the Seahawks winning the Super Bowl. (And before you panic, my team is the eagles...I don't predict them making it this year ..... sniff....)
Sendric (2060 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
The Seahawks are kind of the obvious pick, though, aren't they? Who do you have coming out of the AFC?
fasces349 (1007 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
I've got the Seahawks beating...


wait for it...

Cincinnati Bengal's
Sendric (2060 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
They are probably the most well-balanced team in the AFC. I do have concerns about Dalton handling the pressure though.
Imagonnalose (992 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
Actually, I don't think its that obvious. By my predictions, Seattle is going to have to face a few tough teams in the playoffs. So if they win, they will certainly have deserved it.

AFC Projected Seeds:

1.Denver 11-3
2.New England 12-4
3.Cincinatti 10-6
4.Indianapolis 10-6
5.Kansas City 11-3
6.Miami 10-6

In the Wild Card Round, Cinncinatti treats Miami to another fourth quarter falling apart, allowing the Dolphins the win (note: I am saying the Bengals will "lose" this game not the Dolphins will "win" the game). KC beats the Colts.

In the Divisional Round, Denver doesn't even show up to the game and they beat Miami. Finally a defense to stop up New England's lucky offense and with no defense to speak of, Alex Smith is able to play a mediocre enough offense to win the game.

In the AFC Championship, its really about if Denver's Offense can beat KC's defense. I have Denver coming out on top. Denver goes on to the Big Game.

NFC projected seeds:

1.Seattle 14-2
2.Carolina 12-4
3.Green Bay 9-6-1
4.Dallas 9-7 (fuck you for beating my eagles....)
5.San Fransisco 12-4
6.New Orleans 11-5

In the Wild Card Round, even if Rodgers plays, I don't see why New Orleans would lose. Its just done. Then Dallas has one more home loss to add to its record....

In the Divisional Round, Seattle battles New Orleans and has complete dominance of the Saints' defense. Seattle moves on, not that hard, I'll admit. San Fran plays a good game in Carolina, but here they are just playing a smaller form of Seattle. The Carolina is going to just barely edge by here, probably on a fourth quarter field goal.

In the NFC Championship, we'll really see how close these two teams are to each other. This will probably be my favorite game to watch. I do think Seattle is the better team and will win it.

So I have Seattle and Denver in the Super Bowl. The way I look at it is Denver's offense is just a little bit better than Seattle's Defense, but Seattle's offense is a lot better than Denver's defense. Seattle wins.
fasces349 (1007 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
Kansas has shown with losses to the Chargers and Broncos that they 9-0 start was due to an easy schedule.

New England wont go far without Gronk.

Denver's defense and Peyton Mannings playoff record are both questionable. Also Cincinnati successfully shutdown both Brady and Rodgers earlier in the year, which means they will probably be able to shutdown Manning as well. In my opinion, the likely AFC final will be a Bengals win over the Broncos.

I don't think Miami or Baltimore will be able to pull off a 6th seed Cinderella story.

Colts are the only other team and the Bengels have the better defence and had a convincing win over Indianapolis a couple weeks ago.

In any case it should be an exciting post season:
Can Manning continue his record breaking season into the off season?
What can Brady do without Gronk?

Unlike the NFC, who have a clear favourite, I think you can make an argument for anyone in the AFC.

Denver, NE, KC, Cincinnati and Indianapolis all have enough going for them that you could make the argument that they could play in New Jersey.

I'm picking Cincinnati because of the above teams, they've had the most consistent defence, and everyone knows defence wins games in the post season.

I'm a Pats fan, but I don't think we're a contender this year.
Imagonnalose (992 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
To be fair though, even if my eagles win and the 3rd and 4th seeds are switched, the result will still be the same...New Orleans and San Fran will advance...
Tomahaha (1170 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
my prediction (hope)
Syracuse Orange
...no not NFL, not even college football, the only thing that really matters
March Madness Baby!
ManMountain (984 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
Niners/Patriots superbowl this year. Niners win their sixth.
Sendric (2060 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
I, too, am an Eagles fan. However, I think they beat Dallas. I have no faith in the Cowboys whatsoever. I also see teams in New Orleans and Carolina that suck on the road, which makes me think whichever of them has to travel in the wild card round will lose.

I would rank the NFC thusly:

1) Seattle
2) New Orleans
3) Philly
4) Detroit
5) San Fran
6) Carolina

I flip-flop on NO and Car every day. Philly and San Fran advance in the first week which unfortunately means SF and Sea play one round sooner than they ought to. I give SF a really good chance at winning this game, but a slight edge to Seattle for having homefield. New Orleans beats Philly at home, then loses in Seattle the next week. Note: If Carolina wins the 2nd seed and hosts Philly, I actually feel pretty good about Philly's chances in that game. They would, of course, then get completely demolished in the NFC title game.

I can't argue with your rankings for the AFC, though I don't think New England gets to 12 wins. I expect them to lose to Baltimore this week. Miami could still get in if they win out and Baltimore loses to Cincy in week 17 though. New England will go nowhere in the playoffs. Neither will the Colts. Denver/KC is the most likely match-up in the AFC championship, but if Dalton gets hot they could beat anyone (much like Baltimore last year). I think KC is working to improve their passing game having realized that it wasn't good enough with three consecutive losses against Den/SD, but whether or not it will be good enough is anyone's guess. Trying to pick a team out of this mess is all but impossible, and made even harder with the possibility that Baltimore could still make it. That said, gun to head....I gotta take Denver.

So I guess we end up at the same place. Seattle vs Denver. Seattle wins. I don't like it though. Both #1 seeds making it to the Super Bowl just never seems to happen.

When I say Seattle is the obvious choice, I just mean that they have been the clear #1 team almost all season.
Tomahaha (1170 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
everyone knows defense wins in the post season?
often, but what about St Louis a few years back, the greatest show on turf. And offensive rules favor strong offenses more and more and more, Offense is far more important than when that theory actually made sense!

...Denver!
brettj72 (1673 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
I think the data shows that Defense and Offense is equally important. One thing that is going to be interesting who plays well in the elements. There will be many outside games including the Superbowl. I don't trust Peyton Manning or Drew Brees in the cold in the playoffs. Seattle over New England seems reasonable.
ccga4 (1609 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
All i can say is, its good to live in Seattle :) Nobody can call me a bandwaggoner for rooting for the Seahawks!
G-Man (2466 D)
18 Dec 13 UTC
Before the season started, I had Seattle over SF in the NFC Conference and Denver over Cinci in the AFC Conference, with Denver beating Seattle in the Superbowl. The only difference I see now is Denver over KC in the AFC Conference and New Orleans having a legitimate shot at ousting SF in the NFC Conference. I still think the Superbowl will be Denver over Seattle, and I think Seattle's defense will matter about as much as KC's, who were swept by Denver. I do think Seattle will keep it close.

I see Phili, Chicago, and Carolina taking the other three NFC spots, and New England, Miami, and Indi taking the other three AFC spots, with none of these teams having a shot to win it all or make the Superbowl, and only Chicago and New England having outside shots to make their Conference. I also think Baltimore has an outside shot to oust Miami for a wildcard.
fasces349 (1007 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
@Ima:
"Finally a defense to stop up New England's lucky offense and with no defense to speak of, Alex Smith is able to play a mediocre enough offense to win the game."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good joke. When going 7-4 in the clutch, and the refs stole the win against Carolina from us, you can't really call it luck.

On the other hand Kansas hasn't been able to contain a superstar QB, the best QB they've been able to stop convincingly was Romo, but that was months ago. Oakland, Denver and SD have all put up big scores against Kansas.

Anyone arguing KC is one of the best defenses in the league hasn't seen their last 5 games.

"In the AFC Championship, its really about if Denver's Offense can beat KC's defense. I have Denver coming out on top. Denver goes on to the Big Game."
Again, what defense? Denver has scored 62 D against it so far this season. Assuming the impossible happens and KC does meat Denver in the AFC finals, it will happen again.

"3.Green Bay 9-6-1"
Given Rodgers isn't cleared for Sundays game, how sure are you that GB can win?

@Tomaha and Brett:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/magazine/nate-silver-super-bowl.html?smid=tw-nytmag&_r=0

Historically and recently defense has proven to be more important then offense. Its why I have the Bengal and the Seahawks winning.
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
@fasces
The refs didn't steal the win against Carolina. They did, however, hand you the game against Cleveland. New England is too banged up to go anywhere. Their O-line is a mess. The entire defense is riddled with injuries, and the players who aren't hurt, just flat-out suck. I would expect a healthy New England to make it to the Super Bowl, but this squad? No chance.
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
I know you didn't say they were going to the SB, so I guess I should amend that to say, I think KC beats them if they play.
Imagonnalose (992 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
Man, I get called out with a multi-line blast, and the others just a get a link no one cares about going to. Wow.

Yes I will stand by my statement. Look at New England's Schedule and scores. The only game they won with any kind of a lead was against Pittsburgh, and they only reason that happened was because Pittsburgh's offense is even worse than their defense. So the fact that they scored 31 D is laughable because that was before the grand majority of the Patriots defense was sidelined by injury. Look at their other wins:

Patriots @ Bills: won by 2.
At home against the just: Won by 3 (it was 10-13)
Saints: they only beat them by 3, and you the saints defense is even worse off.
Texans: By 3 (another laugh)
Browns: By 1 (Seriously?????)

Let's look at their losses:

To the Bengals: the only scored 6 D to the Bengals 13....really?
The Jets: ......hah.....
I'll float the loss to the panthers.
And finally the Dolphins, really another laugh.

The Chiefs?

You can't really argue strength of schedule, because look at the Patriots schedule. Not really any harder.

The first 9 games, they kept the other teams under 20. The last 5 games, two of them were against Denver, arguably the best offense in the league. One was against the Chargers, who were picking apart EVERY defense during those weeks. They kept the Redskins under 20. And in the raiders game they were up 21-3 in the first quarter, then matched every touchdown that came after that. The defense didn't need to be there.

I mean, christ, I don't have them beating Denver in the playoffs, but getting to Denver. Absolutely.

And regarding bad ref calls, if you are blaming losing a game on a bad ref call, then you obviously weren't working hard enough to earn the win. And that goes at all levels of professionalism.
fasces349 (1007 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
"@fasces
The refs didn't steal the win against Carolina. They did, however, hand you the game against Cleveland."
If that wasn't passer inteference it was holding, which would still give us 5 yards and a chance for another play.

Cleveland, while the refs did give a bad call, are you seriously going to tell me that with 37 seconds on the clock (when the call was made) Brady couldn't drive down the 20 yards the refs gave him by himself? Give me a fucking break, if anything the call helped Cleveland cause it gave you the chance for a field goal in the final seconds in the game.

"The entire defense is riddled with injuries, and the players who aren't hurt, just flat-out suck. I would expect a healthy New England to make it to the Super Bowl, but this squad? No chance."
Read my comments, I have Cincinnati going to the superbowl for a reason...

"Man, I get called out with a multi-line blast, and the others just a get a link no one cares about going to. Wow."
Link had the stats to prove my point, your was an opinion piece...

"And finally the Dolphins, really another laugh."
3 Dropped passes in the endzone with 20ish second left. If anything the Dolphins got lucky with the win.

If you actually watch the games, its not luck. I'll accept the argument that the Browns win was luck, because it was the first time in 20 years that we had a successful onside kick, but Brady shows up for the end game. He does just enough to give us a win and it has made every game this season exciting.

Watch the games and see for yourself, don't just call them luck because it was a close game.

"You can't really argue strength of schedule, because look at the Patriots schedule. Not really any harder."
You wanted a stat link so here you go:
http://www.theredzone.org/Features/NFLStrengthofSchedule.aspx
Cheifs have the 7th easiest Schedule in the league, Patriots have the 12th hardest.

"And regarding bad ref calls, if you are blaming losing a game on a bad ref call, then you obviously weren't working hard enough to earn the win. And that goes at all levels of professionalism."
I don't normally blame games on ref calls, there has only been one game this season that I have seen in which the refs decided the game, that was the Panthers-Patriots game.
Imagonnalose (992 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
I've said this before and I'll say it again, you can't base a season off of strength of schedule, at least not when its decided by total wins and losses. I mean look at Carolina. They've actually turned the team around and made it into a Championship worthy team. Look at some of the big name teams, for instance the packers. As soon as Rodgers goes out, anybody who faces them has a decided advantage. So you can't base an argument on strength of schedule with so many variables that skew the results. Based on your strength of schedule, the Packers should be on top right now, yet they are battling for the 3rd seed at 7-6-1. My point is, there are too many variables that can completely destroy the strength of schedule.
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
@fasces
I happen to disagree that there was a penalty there, but taking away a chance for another play isn't the same as stealing the game in any case. And what about the non-call on the leg-whip earlier in the game that the Pats committed on a drive they eventually scored? Does that not affect the outcome of the game as well?

As for the Cleveland game, it's certainly possible that the Patriots score there anyway. It's also possible that Brady throws an INT or someone drops a reception or someone fumbles. You know, like how the Miami game ended.
fasces349 (1007 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
@Imma: You seemed to be confused as what SOS means. having a stronger SOS doesn't make you a better team, it just means your facing easier opponents.

Bronco's have had the easiest schedule this year, but that doesn't mean they're the worst team in the league, they're still easily one of the best, they've just been facing a lot of relatively weak teams compared to the Pats and others.

@Sendric: How does having both arms around Gronk before the ball is thrown not be a penalty. Even if you argue the ball was uncatchable (which I don't think it was), it was at the very least holding. The refs seemed to agree with me, they threw the flag and then decided you know what, lets go home.

Now, if it was passer interference (which, I'm certain it was), New England gets the ball on the 1 yard line. You telling me that Brady can't get 1 yard in 1 play?

If you're arguing it was holding, then its a 13 yard pass needed, which granted isn't a guaranteed score, but I still wouldn't count out Brady. The point stands though, the refs took away the pats opportunity.

As for the rest of the game, I had a 3 hour lecture that night (it was monday night football) and missed all but the last two drives of the game (The Carolina TD to take the lead and the New England drive that ended on a miscall). I'm sure that final call wasn't the only bad call in the game, but it was the only game deciding call. Refs were given the opportunity to decide who they wanted to win the game, and they chose Carolina.
Imagonnalose (992 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
Fasces, You can't define a team by history. Sportscasters and analysts do it all the time. By that logic, the Steelers should win the super bowl because they have won the most already. You can't even go year to year with it. Consider each division. New England faces Miami, Buffalo, and New York Jets twice each year. Even for an injured team, that should be 6 wins for the Patriots. Consider the Bengals, they face the Steelers, Ravens, and Browns (one of which is coming off of a super bowl).

Now look at the Seahawks. They face the 49ers, Rams, and Cardinals. Not really the easiest teams to beat even before the season started. They MUST face these teams. I'm sorry, but you just can't argue SOS here without having a flawed argument...
brettj72 (1673 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
(+1)
Re: defenses winning championships. I love me some Nate Silver but I think that article is flawed. Aside from the fact that he predicted the 49ers to win the game last year (which was wrong) he is only looking at the matchups after they are set, not at the beginning of the playoffs.

Here is a good article from the freakonomics blog about it: http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/20/does-defense-really-win-championships/

"There have been 427 NFL playoff games over the last 45 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of them. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. (Again, the winning team is sometimes better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.) That’s a slight edge to the offense, but again, pretty even."
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
@fasces
You need to watch the video of that play again. Keuchly didn't have his arms around Gronk before the pass was thrown. That occurred after the ball was thrown. The ref did throw the flag for pass interference, but they picked it up after determining the ball was uncatchable. You can tell by Gronk's reaction prior to him seeing the flag that he didn't even think it was a penalty. There was no way he was catching that ball, with or without Keuchly in his way.

Also, just because a play occurs at the end of the game doesn't mean its the only play that determines who wins and loses. There were many things that occurred throughout that game to set up that play, including the atrocious non-call on the leg-whipping. The refs did not choose for Carolina to win. They chose that the play in question was not worthy of pass interference. I agree with them.
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
@brettj72
I think it would be interesting to remove the results where the winning team was better on both offense and defense, and just look at the games where one team was better on offense and the other was better on defense. That would be more conclusive evidence one way or the other.
brettj72 (1673 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
That doesn't really make sense to me. If you took those games away, it would come from both totals equally. You would end up with the offense winning about 52% of the time and the defense winning 48%.
G-Man (2466 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
In the NFL, in the modern era, the stats just don't back up that defense wins championships, or has any advantage in the regular season either: http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-15 . Maybe it's the rules changes, free agency, or the salary cap and the fact that talent is spread across 32 teams in this era, but if anything, offenses appear to have a small advantage.
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
The point is to take away games where the team who won had a clear advantage on both sides of the ball. Knowing who won those games doesn't tell us anything for the purposes of determining which is better to have between offense or defense, because those teams were clearly superior overall. The fact that its 52/48 without those games tells us that it doesn't matter which you are better at, as long as you are better at something. That's pretty much what I would expect.
Sendric (2060 D)
19 Dec 13 UTC
They have taken away many of the things defensive players can do during the regular season, and opened up the offenses by doing so, particularly in the passing game. The offense-driven teams have a big advantage during the regular season. However, during the playoffs, defenses are allowed to do more because the refs "allow them to play" more. This artificially benefits the defense in that it puts things are more equal footing. This makes the defense more important, but as always, games aren't decided on just one side of the ball. Having a good defense helps win championships, but it has never been the only piece to the puzzle.
fasces349 (1007 D)
20 Dec 13 UTC
"Fasces, You can't define a team by history. Sportscasters and analysts do it all the time. By that logic, the Steelers should win the super bowl because they have won the most already. You can't even go year to year with it. Consider each division. New England faces Miami, Buffalo, and New York Jets twice each year. Even for an injured team, that should be 6 wins for the Patriots. Consider the Bengals, they face the Steelers, Ravens, and Browns (one of which is coming off of a super bowl). "
Again you're missing the point of strength of schedule.

If my was facing Jacksonville every weak, and my defence held them to under 20 D in most games. You could look at my Points against average and say WOW, he has an amazing defence, but its not, because I'm facing the Jaguars.

On the otherhand if I'm facing the Broncos every weak, it would take a miracle to hold them to under 20 more than a couple of times in the season.

Of course these are both extremes that would never happen but the point is strength of schedule matters. Because we are face different teams, strength of schedule looks at how many wins each team you will face this year has, and adds them up. If they've won more then they've lost, it means you're facing mostly strong teams, if they've lost more then they've won, it means you're facing mostly weak teams.

Stength of schedule doesn't look at past performances, it looks at how each team is currently performing, and makes it so that beating a good team is more impressive then beating a bad team.

You're right that it doesn't take into account injuries so its not perfect.

My point is though is this, Kansas City has faced so many weak offenses this year, and for that reason I think the KC defense is nowhere near as good as some people think.

@Sendric: Watching again I retract that it could have been holding, however it was still passer interference or at the very least illegal contact, and the play should have been redone, either on the 1 yard line or the 13 yard line.

Remember, the only exception for passer interference is if it was clearly uncatchable. and while it would have been a very difficult catch, you can not argue that Gronk wouldn't have been able to dive for it had he not been obstructed.

The bottom line is the Patriots should have had one last opportunity to get the TD, while its not an automatic win, I think Brady and Gronk are good enough to succeed on those kind of plays more often than not, even against a capable Panthers defence.

@brett: fair enough, I retract the defense wins post season games.



30 replies
Page 98 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top