- Warpath News Room - http://www.chiefswarpath.com/news -
Posted By ChiefsWarpath.com On August 26, 2007 @ 7:03 pm In Commentary | Comments Disabled
I got to thinking about preseason games and whether or not they are meaningful or important. Yes, they most definitely are important to those guys trying to either make the team or solidify a starting position. Yes, they are important to rookies (those who actually have signed a contract and are in camp) and to those guys attempting comebacks. But does the record in preseason give any indication of the regular season? Let’s take a look at last year’s records, both preseason and regular season. I’ll just run through the division winners first:
New England: 2-2 preseason; 12-4 regular
Baltimore: 2-2 preseason; 13-3 regular
Indianapolis: 1-3 preseason; 12-4 regular (also the Super Bowl)
San Diego: 2-2 preseason; 14-2 regular
Philadelphia: 2-3 preseason; 10-6 regular
Chicago: 2-2 preseason; 13-3 regular
New Orleans: 1-3 preseason; 10-6 regular
Seattle: 2-2 preseason; 9-7 regular
Not exactly tearing up the opposition, were they? Not one team above .500 and two below it.
I also checked out who did the best in preseason and how the finished the regular season.
Cincinnati went 4-0 and wound up 8-8. Houston went 3-1 and ended 6-10. Carolina went 4-0 and finished the regular season at 8-8. The Giants were undefeated in preseason and went 8-8 in the regular.
Of course, things like injuries must be taken into account. However, there seems to be no real correlation between preseason record and regular season success. At least if we go by last year’s numbers. Who knows, with the Chiefs sitting at 0-3 maybe they will kick it in once September 9th rolls around.
I also get irritated when people speak of “Marty Ball” in such disparaging terms and how they long for the fun of Dick Vermeil’s teams. Vermeil took us to ONE, yes, just ONE playoff game in his five years. He also had only two winning seasons –I don’t count 8-8 as a winning season. Marty Schottenheimer had nine consecutive winning seasons, with his only losing record coming in his last year. Maybe “Marty Ball” wasn’t so bad after all. Vermeil may have provided entertainment but I got very tired of losing with scores like 35-31.
On a different note, can we tell anything by comparing salaries to success? Let’s see.
The Colts had the highest 2006 salary, over $130 million and won the Super Bowl. The Vikings, second on the list, had a salary of $125 million and went 6-10. Dallas, number three in pay, went 9-7. Daniel Snyder and his Redskins, number 6 on the list, went 5-11. Of course, the main thing this shows is that just because you have money doesn’t mean you know how to spend it wisely.
Of the 16 teams with payrolls over $100 million only six (Colts, Cowboys, Ravens, Seahawks, Patriots and Eagles) had a winning record. It also works the other way. For example, the New York Jets were way down at 28th on the list with a team salary of just over $86 million and they finished 10-6. Our Chiefs were 29th and went 9-7. (All these salary figures came from USA TODAY–there may be other, better sources; if so, please feel free to correct me.)
My favorite salary statistic? The Raiders on the bottom at $71 million and a 2-14 record. Maybe there is some correlation after all.
Article printed from Warpath News Room: http://www.chiefswarpath.com/news
URL to article: http://www.chiefswarpath.com/news/2007/08/26/comparing-numbers/
© Copyright 2000 - 2013