Interesting 2009 Stats from Football Outsiders

[Duckjake]

Dude, that was a terrible football team. They had a magical run to the Super Bowl because Matt Ryan was a rookie and Jake Delhomme decided to end his career, but the team that made the Super Bowl run had very little comparison to the team that stunk up the field over the last third of the 2008 season. That team was S-T-I-N-K-Y and put up some embarrassing performances.

Honestly, there were a half-dozen NFC and AFC teams who didn't make the playoffs that year who you could put in the NFC West and would have won the division with 11 or 12 wins.

Only for 4 games. The rest of the season they were a fairly good football team.

In the other 12 games the Cards averaged 29 points per game which would have been #1 in the NFL and 300 ypg passing which would have been 2nd.

They gave up 89 yards per game rushing which would have been ranked 4th and 20 pts per game which would have had them 10th.

I don't care what anyone says, the Cards didn't bother with three of those 4 games as they were already celebrating their first division title which was all but locked up when they got to 7-3. That they then ran off 4 straight wins with 30 points or more and put up over 400 yards of offense on the NFL's #1 defense in the SB speaks volumes.

Just for future reference this is a "terrible" football team. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/2003.htm

 

[kerouac9]

Scoreboard. They were a couple minutes from a championship. He comes up with interesting numbers, but he was still pretty whiny that year because his Pats didn't make the playoffs and the Cards did.

Are you talking about this scoreboard?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Are you talking about this scoreboard?

That's your counter argument that he said the Cards weren't terrible because they made it to the SB?

 

[TJ]

I dont think we need stats to prove Breaston was horrible in punt returns last season...although his run back vs. Vikings was supurb.

Truth

He was horrible because he seemed to be doing pirouettes after he caught the ball and running east and west on many of his returns. Too much emphasis on taking one to the house as opposed to gaining quality yards.

He is a great receiver though and Im ecstatic that he is our #2 and the PR responsibilities are delegated to someone else.

 

[kerouac9]

Only for 4 games. The rest of the season they were a fairly good football team.

In the other 12 games the Cards averaged 29 points per game which would have been #1 in the NFL and 300 ypg passing which would have been 2nd.

They gave up 89 yards per game rushing which would have been ranked 4th and 20 pts per game which would have had them 10th.

I don't care what anyone says, the Cards didn't bother with three of those 4 games as they were already celebrating their first division title which was all but locked up when they got to 7-3. That they then ran off 4 straight wins with 30 points or more and put up over 400 yards of offense on the NFL's #1 defense in the SB speaks volumes.

Just for future reference this is a "terrible" football team. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/2003.htm

The rest of the season they were an average football team playing the easiest schedule in the NFL. They went 9-7 going 6-0 in their division and beating a Miami Dolphins team at home who had the #1 pick in the draft the previous season, a Buffalo Bills team at home who were paper tigers coming into the game, and a good Dallas Cowboys team. Every other legit team they played they either lost to or lost to in embarrassing fashion.

Good teams don't hang up their spikes and wait out the season in mid-November.

PFW didn't think the Cards were a bad team; they thought that they were an average team who was deeply outperforming their statistics in the playoffs.

Yes, that 2003 team was a terrible, terrible football team. The 2008 squad just decided to shamelessly coast and steal money from the fans for two months.

 

[Duckjake]

The rest of the season they were an average football team playing the easiest schedule in the NFL. They went 9-7 going 6-0 in their division and beating a Miami Dolphins team at home who had the #1 pick in the draft the previous season, a Buffalo Bills team at home who were paper tigers coming into the game, and a good Dallas Cowboys team. Every other legit team they played they either lost to or lost to in embarrassing fashion.

Good teams don't hang up their spikes and wait out the season in mid-November.

PFW didn't think the Cards were a bad team; they thought that they were an average team who was deeply outperforming their statistics in the playoffs.

Yes, that 2003 team was a terrible, terrible football team. The 2008 squad just decided to shamelessly coast and steal money from the fans for two months.

Yes they did but really only for 5 week stretch (and they blasted the hapless Rams during that stretch 34-10). But in their defense you have to remember they were the Arizona "5-11 every year" Cardinals with no experience whatsoever in how to react to their position.

In addition they did not lose to a single team with a losing record, the combined record of the teams they did lose to was 71-40-1, and they avenged two of their regular season losses in the playoffs beating Carolina and Philadelphia. Terrible teams do not do that.

 

[football karma]

Dude, that was a terrible football team. They had a magical run to the Super Bowl because Matt Ryan was a rookie and Jake Delhomme decided to end his career, but the team that made the Super Bowl run had very little comparison to the team that stunk up the field over the last third of the 2008 season. That team was S-T-I-N-K-Y and put up some embarrassing performances.

Honestly, there were a half-dozen NFC and AFC teams who didn't make the playoffs that year who you could put in the NFC West and would have won the division with 11 or 12 wins.

i would describe it differently: incredibly volatile.

Capable of beating the best, capable of losing to the worst. You just never really knew what team was going to show up.

They had an pass dependent offense they was volatile, a defense that was volatile and an overall personality that was volatile.

Its why FO just couldn't get a handle on them. Statistics work great as predictors when the standard deviation is reasonably low. The Cardinals deviation from the average was off the charts.

 

[Mulli]

The rest of the season they were an average football team playing the easiest schedule in the NFL. They went 9-7 going 6-0 in their division and beating a Miami Dolphins team at home who had the #1 pick in the draft the previous season, a Buffalo Bills team at home who were paper tigers coming into the game, and a good Dallas Cowboys team. Every other legit team they played they either lost to or lost to in embarrassing fashion.

Good teams don't hang up their spikes and wait out the season in mid-November.

PFW didn't think the Cards were a bad team; they thought that they were an average team who was deeply outperforming their statistics in the playoffs.

Yes, that 2003 team was a terrible, terrible football team. The 2008 squad just decided to shamelessly coast and steal money from the fans for two months.

Did they really have the easiest schedule? I know going into the season, it was the Patriots. I think you are right, but I can't find anything to back that up.
http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story/09000d5d809fbfa9/article/2008-nfl-strength-of-schedule
Also, I find it hard to believe that the team was just one "terrible" away from being the terrible terrible team from 2003. Three teams had a week to figure out how to beat them in the playoffs, and couldn't. And the Steelers barely eeked out a win.

scoreboard

 

[Mulli]

i would describe it differently: incredibly volatile.

Capable of beating the best, capable of losing to the worst. You just never really knew what team was going to show up.

They had an pass dependent offense they was volatile, a defense that was volatile and an overall personality that was volatile.

Its why FO just couldn't get a handle on them. Statistics work great as predictors when the standard deviation is reasonably low. The Cardinals deviation from the average was off the charts.

Exactly.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

In the Card section of the annual, they actually note that DRC's tackling improved quite a bit in the latter part of the season.

First off. Great post. Thanks

Second, there where a lot of things that DRC did better in the end of the season. A lot of the negative things on that list with DRC's name next to it are because he was pitiful at the beginning of last season.

Once he got his mind right, his ability showed through. Thus why I believe after a humbling season (yes, All-pro I know), and a humbling injury, I think he is going to be dominant this year.

 

[Duckjake]

Did they really have the easiest schedule? I know going into the season, it was the Patriots. I think you are right, but I can't find anything to back that up.
http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story/09000d5d809fbfa9/article/2008-nfl-strength-of-schedule
Also, I find it hard to believe that the team was just one "terrible" away from being the terrible terrible team from 2003. Three teams had a week to figure out how to beat them in the playoffs, and couldn't. And the Steelers barely eeked out a win.

scoreboard

I don't see how anybody could say the Cards had the easiest schedule when their non-division opponents were a combined 98-61-1 and included 4 games against eventual Division Champions.

The rest of the NFC West was terrible but the Cards hammered them by an average score of 30-16. So it wasn't anywhere close to 1998 where the Cards eked out last minute wins over weak teams to make the playoffs.

 

[BigRedArk]

The rest of the season they were an average football team playing the easiest schedule in the NFL. They went 9-7 going 6-0 in their division and beating a Miami Dolphins team at home who had the #1 pick in the draft the previous season, a Buffalo Bills team at home who were paper tigers coming into the game, and a good Dallas Cowboys team. Every other legit team they played they either lost to or lost to in embarrassing fashion.

Good teams don't hang up their spikes and wait out the season in mid-November.

PFW didn't think the Cards were a bad team; they thought that they were an average team who was deeply outperforming their statistics in the playoffs.

Yes, that 2003 team was a terrible, terrible football team. The 2008 squad just decided to shamelessly coast and steal money from the fans for two months.

If you are saying that Whis is guilty of lets say settling for lack of consistency by his team throughout the course of the season then I agree with you. He has been guilty of that at times thus far as HC of the Cards for whatever reasons.

However consider this dichotomy(sp) in these general scenarios. Which coaching effort would you say is better?

Team A goes 11-5 or 12-4 during the regular season with game winning streaks in which they dominate their opponents but lose their first playoff game?

Team B goes 9-7 or 10-6 with little to no domination of their opponents during the regular season but hit the playoffs and go on a winning streak to the SB?

 

[kerouac9]

If you are saying that Whis is guilty of lets say settling for lack of consistency by his team throughout the course of the season then I agree with you. He has been guilty of that at times thus far as HC of the Cards for whatever reasons.

However consider this dichotomy(sp) in these general scenarios. Which coaching effort would you say is better?

Team A goes 11-5 or 12-4 during the regular season with game winning streaks in which they dominate their opponents but lose their first playoff game?

Team B goes 9-7 or 10-6 with little to no domination of their opponents during the regular season but hit the playoffs and go on a winning streak to the SB?

Are you asking me whether Norv Turner is better than Ken Whisenhunt? Give me a break.

But why does it have to be one or the other. My point is that good teams dominate lesser opponents. That's one of the baseline realizations of the FO analysis. The Pats and Colts DOMINATE lesser opponents, and then chug away to the Conference Championship game or Super Bowl. I would rather have my team be like the Colts, Pats, or Jets and compete for a title almost every year than have a group of players put their collective feet up beginning in Week 9 because they figure they only need one home game.

It was a series of odd events that lead the Cards to hosting that NFC Championship Game. We were practically the team in your first scenario last season had Aaron Rogers completed one more pass.

 

[Gee!]

Just for future reference this is a "terrible" football team. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/2003.htm

Whenever we start talking about horrible games/years.. This game always pops in my head.. I remember watching this game thinking we were never ever ever gonna be a good team ever.. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200212010kan.htm That was a brutal game to watch..

 

[kerouac9]

Whenever we start talking about horrible games/years.. This game always pops in my head.. I remember watching this game thinking we were never ever ever gonna be a good team ever.. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200212010kan.htm That was a brutal game to watch..

That was bad, but I'm not sure it was as bad as the Cleveland game early the next season. Kelly Holcomb passed for nearly 400 yards and 3 TDs. Kelly Holcomb!

I remember that the KC game was supposed to be Marcel Shipp's coming out party. He was all over the fantasy predictions because the Chiefs were terrible against the run.

 

[BigRedArk]

I would rather have my team be like the Colts, Pats, or Jets and compete for a title almost every year than have a group of players put their collective feet up beginning in Week 9 because they figure they only need one home game.

It was a series of odd events that lead the Cards to hosting that NFC Championship Game. We were practically the team in your first scenario last season had Aaron Rogers completed one more pass.

I would rather have my team be like the Colts, Pats, or Jets too.

The odd event that led the Cards hosting the NFC championship game was Whis getting his team to peak during the playoffs in 2009.

 

[kerouac9]

I would rather have my team be like the Colts, Pats, or Jets too.

The odd event that led the Cards hosting the NFC championship game was Whis getting his team to peak during the playoffs in 2009.

So it wasn't the three higher seeds losing in the playoffs, as well? The Cards were the lowest-seeded division winner in that tournament.

The Cards won their way to the NFC Championship game, but it was a home game because of a fluky sequence of events.

 

[bg7brd]

So it wasn't the three higher seeds losing in the playoffs, as well? The Cards were the lowest-seeded division winner in that tournament.

The Cards won their way to the NFC Championship game, but it was a home game because of a fluky sequence of events.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason the higher seeds lost is because the other team was better?

The Cards were the underdogs in those games. They won every one fair and square. There was nothing fluky about their wins. Look it up.

The vast majority of your posts are anti Cardinal. I'm beginnng to agree with ArizonasFinest that the main reason you're on here is to be an antagonist.

 

[kerouac9]

Did it ever occur to you that the reason the higher seeds lost is because the other team was better?

The Cards were the underdogs in those games. They won every one fair and square. There was nothing fluky about their wins. Look it up.

The vast majority of your posts are anti Cardinal. I'm beginnng to agree with ArizonasFinest that the main reason you're on here is to be an antagonist.

That's right. The reason that I represent the Cards on ESPN Football Today and I spend so much time here is that I don't like the Cards and I'm a troll. That's how I do here.

I'm not anti-Cardinal (whatever the heck that means). I'm pro-reality. Part of the reason that the team got as bad as it did under the Mac/Graves regime is that they didn't have a correct estimation of the roster. You can't go into a season telling yourself that Ronald McKinnon is a good linebacker and that Raynoch Thompson is a budding star, and expect to put together a good football team.

I think that Rod Graves convinced himself that Paris Lenon is a good starter, and that Daryl Washington is going to be a playmaker, even though neither were as a pro and in college, respectively. You can't improve your team or install effective systems unless you look at your roster with a cold eye and understand what's actually there.

There was nothing fluky about the Cards' wins (although Jake Delhomme's meltdown was pretty surprising), but the Vikings losing at home to the Eagles? The Giants losing to the Eagles at home with a week off? Those were all necessary in order for the Cards to host the NFC Championship game.

Do you think that on a neutral field the Cards would have beaten the Eagles?

 

[Buckybird]

I think that Rod Graves convinced himself that Paris Lenon is a good starter, and that Daryl Washington is going to be a playmaker, even though neither were as a pro and in college, respectively. You can't improve your team or install effective systems unless you look at your roster with a cold eye and understand what's actually there.

I agree 100%. Many of us as fans get caught up in thinking "This guy can play" just because he's wearing our jersey instead of actually watching whether the guy can play or not. Many of us here feared what was taking place at ILB this offseason & some of us also have doubts about what we added in at CB. I luv the "In Wiz we trust" motto, but without a doubt he & Graves have dropped the ball this offseason at these 2 key positions of our defense.

Adding Justin Miller at CB/KR/PR when you have holes in the secondary & just added a top flight PR in the draft & the Hyphen is solid at KR...give me a break!!!

 

[BigRedArk]

So it wasn't the three higher seeds losing in the playoffs, as well? The Cards were the lowest-seeded division winner in that tournament.

The Cards won their way to the NFC Championship game, but it was a home game because of a fluky sequence of events.

Last time I checked there isn't one single team in the NFL that gets to A. choose the division that they play in, B. has control over how competitive the other teams in that division are, or C. gets to choose its opponents. You play the schedule you are given. Some years they are tougher than others.

If we had dominated our opponents consistently in '09 and finished say 11-5 or 12 -4 and lost the first game of the playoffs you would be screaming that Whis' was indeed the sorriest coach ever. Instead we peaked at the right time after playing inconsistently during the regular season. You however don't want to give any credit where credit is due. Give me a break. We got hot as a team at just the right time. Why don't you want to give any credit to the coaching staff for that?

BTW I am nearly certain that the victory at Carolina was the first playoff victory on the road in the history of the Cardinals. Pretty big stuff.

Yes we definitely need to be more consistent and win the games we are supposed to against weaker opponents. I agree with you on that. However is it a fair criticism of you to say that the glass is always half empty from your perspective?

 

[RugbyMuffin]

That was bad, but I'm not sure it was as bad as the Cleveland game early the next season. Kelly Holcomb passed for nearly 400 yards and 3 TDs. Kelly Holcomb!

+1

THAT was the lowest of the low. That game was over BEFORE halftime.

 

[Duckjake]

Last time I checked there isn't one single team in the NFL that gets to A. choose the division that they play in, B. has control over how competitive the other teams in that division are, or C. gets to choose its opponents. You play the schedule you are given. Some years they are tougher than others.

If we had dominated our opponents consistently in '09 and finished say 11-5 or 12 -4 and lost the first game of the playoffs you would be screaming that Whis' was indeed the sorriest coach ever. Instead we peaked at the right time after playing inconsistently during the regular season. You however don't want to give any credit where credit is due. Give me a break. We got hot as a team at just the right time. Why don't you want to give any credit to the coaching staff for that?

BTW I am nearly certain that the victory at Carolina was the first playoff victory on the road in the history of the Cardinals. Pretty big stuff.

Yes we definitely need to be more consistent and win the games we are supposed to against weaker opponents. I agree with you on that. However is it a fair criticism of you to say that the glass is always half empty from your perspective?

I doubt it. That's not what K9 does.

My disagreement with him is in saying good teams don't take off for 3-4 games to celebrate, which is true, but without taking into consideration that the Cards were a brand new "good" team with one of the sorriest histories in professional sports to overcome, AND a recent history of almost surrealistic failures (see 2006).

The Cards proved they were a good team by beating every team on their schedule that had a losing record for '08, avenging (for lack of a better word) two of their regular season losses in the playoffs and then repeating as Division Champions in 2009, again not losing to a single team that finished the season with a losing record.

Two years without losing a single game to a team that finished worse than 8-8. (In 2007 they lost five. They lost to the team with the #1 pick in the draft the next April 3 years in a row) In addition they've had their last two postseasons ended only by the Super Bowl Champion. They've won 23 games. That's not bad for any NFL team. For the Arizona Cardinals it is flat out amazing.

 

[JeffGollin]

My disagreement with [K9] is in saying good teams don't take off for 3-4 games to celebrate, which is true, but without taking into consideration that the Cards were a brand new "good" team...

Ah hah! I was trying to sort out the issue of "K9 the Troll" vs. "K9 the Realist" because I frequently disagree with him but never considered him anti-Cardinal.

Best I can come up with is that he loves to take one small negative aspect of a much bigger picture and then globalize it. I don't consider this "realism" but it just seems to be the way K9 likes to look at things.

Just because a team takes its foot off the pedal after winning a few games doesn't mean it's a horrible football team - it just means that it has trouble living with success and must learn how to fight through that deficiency.

(It's not all that different from the team's previous inability to win on the road - they recognized this as a challenge, worked on it and wound up with a better road-record this past season. No doubt, they should continue to work on this issue until it's dead & buried for once and for all).

When evaluating the Cardinals during the past few seasons, I prefer to fall back on the Bill Parcells "It is what it is" way of seeing things. Regardless of who was terrific, who sucked, how the ball bounced, how the schedule fell and what the FO did, the Cards reached the playoffs for 2 seasons in a row.

That made us a Playoff Team then. It makes us a Playoff Team now (until we no longer are).

 

[Duckjake]

That made us a Playoff Team then. It makes us a Playoff Team now (until we no longer are).

Agreed. But the debate is over whether or not the Cards were a "good" playoff team.