2016 NFL Schedule

[rmcjacket23]

On 4/16/2016 at 9:24 PM, Ravensfan23 said:

Upside to a 3rd place finish is a 3rd place schedule. Every team can win on Sunday's, however I think on paper it's a favorable schedule and put together well. Hate the Bengals at the end of the season just as much as others do. 

The start will be the most important part for the Ravens. How do they come together as after injuries and the younger players getting some much needed experience? If they can get off to a fast start I think it'll be a great season. 

Partially true, though obviously those schedules fluctuate every year.

Do we think for certain that Jacksonville won't be better than Houston or Indy this season? I don't see a large gap between those teams.

Same thing in the AFC West... Denver could easily take a step back, and Oakland isn't significantly worse than them.

If we weren't playing the AFC East on rotation, then we would miss out on NE, which would be a good thing, but that's not the case this year.

[beanfigger]

4 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, it pretty much has to happen, because the Ravens aren't the only team in the league. One way or another, several teams in the league are going to have stretches like that on an annual basis, because there's no possible way to have a perfectly fair and balanced schedule for 32 teams at once.

That's sort of the point. If that schedule happened to the Steelers, would we be saying its unfair? Of course not. Why? Because we only think things are unfair when it happens to the team we cheer for. 

We play both West divisions every 12 years. Perhaps next time the schedule will be more "beneficial" for us in terms of less consecutive road stretches. But regardless, people will always fine some way to complain about scheduling. Most of the time, that's out of ignorance on their part, not on the league's part.

But starting with 5 out of 7 on the road does NOT happen every year to a team. It hadn't happened to a team before last season since 2000 (again, that was also Baltimore). I'm not ignorant, and I'm not trying to say the league has it out for us. I was saying that that was an unfair start to a season that is very, very rare, does not get "made up for" by a later stretch, and was unlucky. And of course it would be unlucky for the Steelers to start that way, but they didn't, and you have to go way back into the previous century to try and find an instance where it did happen to them, if ever. That point is completely invalid.

[rmcjacket23]

4 minutes ago, beanfigger said:

But starting with 5 out of 7 on the road does NOT happen every year to a team. It hadn't happened to a team before last season since 2000 (again, that was also Baltimore). I'm not ignorant, and I'm not trying to say the league has it out for us. I was saying that that was an unfair start to a season that is very, very rare, does not get "made up for" by a later stretch, and was unlucky. And of course it would be unlucky for the Steelers to start that way, but they didn't, and you have to go way back into the previous century to try and find an instance where it did happen to them, if ever. That point is completely invalid.

But to me, it doesn't really matter. 5 out of 7 on the road, 4 out of 5, 6 out of 8, doesn't really matter. Its just something for fans to complain about when things don't go their way.

If we played 5 out of 7 on the road and we won 4 or 5 of those games, would this be a topic of conversation or a complaint? Did we do that? Nope, we didn't. 

Its kind of hard to play the "our schedule was too tough" card when you see how effective (or in our case, ineffective) we are when the schedule gets easier. So I mean its wonderful to say "well we had a tough start", but then I take total stock of our team, talent, etc. and can't really say that a tough road schedule really altered our overall performance that much.

[GrimCoconut]

16 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But to me, it doesn't really matter. 5 out of 7 on the road, 4 out of 5, 6 out of 8, doesn't really matter. Its just something for fans to complain about when things don't go their way.

If we played 5 out of 7 on the road and we won 4 or 5 of those games, would this be a topic of conversation or a complaint? Did we do that? Nope, we didn't. 

Its kind of hard to play the "our schedule was too tough" card when you see how effective (or in our case, ineffective) we are when the schedule gets easier. So I mean its wonderful to say "well we had a tough start", but then I take total stock of our team, talent, etc. and can't really say that a tough road schedule really altered our overall performance that much.

I suggest if you don't want to hear fans complain when things don't go their (or the teams') way then this forum isn't really for you and you should just not listen to sports talk radio, either. 

Edited April 18, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[rmcjacket23]

4 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

I suggest if you don't want to hear fans complain when things don't go their (or the teams') way then this forum isn't really for you and you should just not listen to sports talk radio, either. 

Well, I sort of want to hear it, mostly just to expose the hypocrisy of it and show people how a more objective observer might view the same opinion completely differently.

If/when I listed to talk radio, its practically never to a station that allows fans to call in and discuss sports (or at least rarely does). Really no upside in that, and there's practically no chance you'll become more educated listening to those types of stations.

[Ravensfan23]

7 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Partially true, though obviously those schedules fluctuate every year.

Do we think for certain that Jacksonville won't be better than Houston or Indy this season? I don't see a large gap between those teams.

Same thing in the AFC West... Denver could easily take a step back, and Oakland isn't significantly worse than them.

If we weren't playing the AFC East on rotation, then we would miss out on NE, which would be a good thing, but that's not the case this year.

Agreed. I don't think you can say for sure that any team will be better then the next because things change. The teams are so close nowadays because of the rules making it easier to score that you don't get the homecoming games to often any more. 

Even with that said, I'd still rather play teams like the Raiders and Jags then Broncos, SD, Colts or Houston. Not saying they won't be good or they'll be easy wins, just look at last season. Just feel those teams being habitual losers over the last 5-10 years leads to more favorable games imo.

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

Agreed. I don't think you can say for sure that any team will be better then the next because things change. The teams are so close nowadays because of the rules making it easier to score that you don't get the homecoming games to often any more. 

Even with that said, I'd still rather play teams like the Raiders and Jags then Broncos, SD, Colts or Houston. Not saying they won't be good or they'll be easy wins, just look at last season. Just feel those teams being habitual losers over the last 5-10 years leads to more favorable games imo.

Generally agree. I don't think the Raiders will necessarily be significantly better than last season, but I do think Jacksonville can possibly take a major step forward with a good draft.

I've never seen anything special about Houston, and Indy will have similar issues with their defense and offensive line unless they make some major moves in the draft.

Jacksonville could very easily be the best team in that division this year with a good draft.

[Moderator 3]

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, I sort of want to hear it, mostly just to expose the hypocrisy of it and show people how a more objective observer might view the same opinion completely differently.

So, you want to be the exact opposite of being a fan?  Nothing on our fan cards requires objectivity.  

[beanfigger]

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But to me, it doesn't really matter. 5 out of 7 on the road, 4 out of 5, 6 out of 8, doesn't really matter. Its just something for fans to complain about when things don't go their way.

If we played 5 out of 7 on the road and we won 4 or 5 of those games, would this be a topic of conversation or a complaint? Did we do that? Nope, we didn't. 

Its kind of hard to play the "our schedule was too tough" card when you see how effective (or in our case, ineffective) we are when the schedule gets easier. So I mean its wonderful to say "well we had a tough start", but then I take total stock of our team, talent, etc. and can't really say that a tough road schedule really altered our overall performance that much.

At least I finally got you to admit you have a differing opinion and not some factual information that the rest of us "ignorant" and "hypocritical" fans aren't smart enough to understand.

[Willbacker]

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, I sort of want to hear it, mostly just to expose the hypocrisy of it and show people how a more objective observer might view the same opinion completely differently.

If/when I listed to talk radio, its practically never to a station that allows fans to call in and discuss sports (or at least rarely does). Really no upside in that, and there's practically no chance you'll become more educated listening to those types of stations.

NFL Sirius has a lot of informed callers and great guests. Very informative with a lot of different opinions.

[rmcjacket23]

15 hours ago, Moderator 3 said:

So, you want to be the exact opposite of being a fan?  Nothing on our fan cards requires objectivity.  

Blind homerism certainly isn't a requirement to be a "fan".

I know this might be shocking to some, so brace yourself, but there are some actual fans on this planet who can view things objectively, actually identify weaknesses, and even use factual information to make intelligent judgments, both good and bad, about their team.

There's also nothing on my fan card that says I have to respect people who fail to view things objectively or intelligently, nor does it say I can't point out said hypocrisies when they present themselves. 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[rmcjacket23]

15 hours ago, beanfigger said:

At least I finally got you to admit you have a differing opinion and not some factual information that the rest of us "ignorant" and "hypocritical" fans aren't smart enough to understand.

And I'm glad that you finally admitted that playing 6 out of 8 home games is a very big benefit to an NFL team and something that not many teams get to have on an annual basis.

 

[rmcjacket23]

15 hours ago, Willbacker said:

NFL Sirius has a lot of informed callers and great guests. Very informative with a lot of different opinions.

One of the few stations I listen to. Some of their opinions can be quite a bit off base at times, but overall not a bad scene.

My comments were mostly associated with local radio, which is quite literally as bad as it gets. Listening to stations like The Fan in Baltimore is pretty much guaranteed to make you a dumber person.

[beanfigger]

32 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And I'm glad that you finally admitted that playing 6 out of 8 home games is a very big benefit to an NFL team and something that not many teams get to have on an annual basis.

 

Since I mentioned that in my very first post of this conversation, I guess you've been glad for a while. That doesn't sound like you. Enjoying it?

[ludy51]

2 minutes ago, beanfigger said:

Since I mentioned that in my very first post of this conversation, I guess you've been glad for a while. That doesn't sound like you. Enjoying it?

He's just ecstatic isn't he?

[berad]

39 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Blind homerism certainly isn't a requirement to be a "fan".

I know this might be shocking to some, so brace yourself, but there are some actual fans on this planet who can view things objectively, actually identify weaknesses, and even use factual information to make intelligent judgments, both good and bad, about their team.

There's also nothing on my fan card that says I have to respect people who fail to view things objectively or intelligently, nor does it say I can't point out said hypocrisies when they present themselves. 

 

No that's your personal preference but on these forums we do treat other members with respect.

[Tank 92]

On April 18, 2016 at 1:24 PM, rmcjacket23 said:

But to me, it doesn't really matter. 5 out of 7 on the road, 4 out of 5, 6 out of 8, doesn't really matter. Its just something for fans to complain about when things don't go their way.

If we played 5 out of 7 on the road and we won 4 or 5 of those games, would this be a topic of conversation or a complaint? Did we do that? Nope, we didn't. 

Its kind of hard to play the "our schedule was too tough" card when you see how effective (or in our case, ineffective) we are when the schedule gets easier. So I mean its wonderful to say "well we had a tough start", but then I take total stock of our team, talent, etc. and can't really say that a tough road schedule really altered our overall performance that much.

While many things in life follow on in a mathematical sequence, team dynamics and performance are not included. 

[rmcjacket23]

2 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

While many things in life follow on in a mathematical sequence, team dynamics and performance are not included. 

OK, but nobody can infer that we would have somehow been a better off team if we had a "balanced" schedule based on any sort of factual information. You can make a guess that's the case, but that's all it is... a guess. In my opinion, its sort of a baseless guess.

My inference that we wouldn't be a better team with a balanced schedule is based on the fact that we weren't a better team when we had a favorable schedule. 

[beanfigger]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

OK, but nobody can infer that we would have somehow been a better off team if we had a "balanced" schedule based on any sort of factual information. You can make a guess that's the case, but that's all it is... a guess. In my opinion, its sort of a baseless guess.

My inference that we wouldn't be a better team with a balanced schedule is based on the fact that we weren't a better team when we had a favorable schedule. 

So the fact that we had a better record in the second half of the season with backups than we did with starters in the first half means nothing?

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, beanfigger said:

So the fact that we had a better record in the second half of the season with backups than we did with starters in the first half means nothing?

Not really.

3-7 with Joe, 2-5 without him. We've certainly had no problem in the past winning many games with multiple significant injuries that weren't to our QB, so why would I treat 2016 differently than those years?

We were also 2-3 with Joe in home games, with only one of those games being against a playoff team. So am I supposed to assume that we would beat teams like Seattle and KC at home just because we have Joe, even though we couldn't beat Cleveland or Jacksonville at home with him?

Again, all circles back to a talent/production issue far more than a scheduling one.

[beanfigger]

20 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

 

Again, all circles back to a talent/production issue far more than a scheduling one.

I would never, and have never, argue(d) with that. Has nothing to do with the points I made. The schedule wasn't the reason we were bad, but it was a factor, and it was a very unlucky set up. That's all. You pointing to other reasons we struggled doesn't apply to this.

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, beanfigger said:

I would never, and have never, argue(d) with that. Has nothing to do with the points I made. The schedule wasn't the reason we were bad, but it was a factor, and it was a very unlucky set up. That's all. You pointing to other reasons we struggled doesn't apply to this.

And my point is:

1. In my judgment, its not anywhere near as much of a factor as fans think it was 

2. Most importantly, how do we measure whether it was even a factor? What evidence is there to suggest that we win more games with a more favorable schedule? Hence, my most recent post. You look at what we do when our schedule is favorable, and its completely unimpressive and really didn't show much deviation from our performance under a non-favorable schedule.

As such, if we can't see barely any significant differences in production from a favorable vs non favorable schedule... how does somebody arrive at the conclusion that a less favorable schedule was a factor in our total outcome?

We have an inkling that injuries played a roll later in the season, and likely that quantity of opponent played a role, but scheduling? I don't see it.

[beanfigger]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And my point is:

1. In my judgment, its not anywhere near as much of a factor as fans think it was 

2. Most importantly, how do we measure whether it was even a factor? What evidence is there to suggest that we win more games with a more favorable schedule? Hence, my most recent post. You look at what we do when our schedule is favorable, and its completely unimpressive and really didn't show much deviation from our performance under a non-favorable schedule.

As such, if we can't see barely any significant differences in production from a favorable vs non favorable schedule... how does somebody arrive at the conclusion that a less favorable schedule was a factor in our total outcome?

We have an inkling that injuries played a roll later in the season, and likely that quantity of opponent played a role, but scheduling? I don't see it.

In my judgement, it was a factor. Performance was the main factor, injuries second, then schedule. The injuries started to pile up just as the schedule lightened up. I honestly believe that with a healthy Joe, Steve, Justin, etc. we win against Jax and Mia, which puts us on a huge winning streak right in the middle of the year, and who knows what happens after that. They were healthy during a nearly unprecedented start to the season schedule-wise in the NFL, and it can't simply be dismissed because that type of start to a team's season doesn't just happen all the time with historic basis to prove it has no effect on a team. I believe it did, and it seems obvious to me that it did. We were one play away from winning all those games (actually, tying the game against Ari, winning the rest), and to me it seems very likely that without the back-and-forths across the country and different city every week schedule that we might have made at least some of those plays.