Pretty old stats but still... Fodder for debate. http://www.twominutewarning.com/preseason-matter.htm "Prior Year Average Teams (7 to 9 Wins) This is the group where preseason performance has mattered the most, but for NFL 2006 it's a small group indeed with only Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Minnesota and San Diego coming off a "mediocre" record season. Three or more exhibition wins and teams have averaged over nine wins in the regular season and reached the magic ten plus level 44% of the time. Two or fewer preseason wins and it's barely seven wins on average and only 26% of such teams have made it to double digit victories." So I'm hoping for 4/5 wins, since we have an extra game.
Meh...I think this is a case of stats not being reality... Especially preseason...how many of the 3 wins were 3rd/4th qtr wins, where the wins came from the 3rd and 4th teams ? I don't see any correlation between preseason records and regular season records except for happenstance...
I don't buy into the preseason records meaning anything. I remember the Colts going 0-4 one year and then going 14-2. The Pats went 0-4 one year and then 11-5. There's also the 4-0 preseason Lions who went 0-16.
I know that wins per se are not a one-to-one correspondence. But, there is some correlation. Even more than that is whether the 1st team Off/Def get a "win" by playing well. While many denigrate the preseason as meaningless (and occasionally it is) - I think it really can portend how a season goes. If the offense or defense struggles all pre-season (unless it's a vet team that has talent and can crank it up), more than likely they will struggle in the regular season. I know it's also anecdotal and not proof but I'll never forget the 99 Rams. Up to that point, the Rams were a mediocre at best team. In that preseason - first with Trent Green before he got injured, then with reserve Kurt Warner - they were lighting teams up with their starting offense. I thought, "Meh, preseason doesn't matter." Then they exploded. Perhaps most of all, what the preseason can bring is a sense of confidence. Perhaps that's why the W-L record has some correlation.
Meh... the Lions went undefeated in the preseason and then went 0-16 I believe. W/L doesn't matter IMO, since the people deciding the final outcomes of most the games won't even be on your final roster of 53. But individual performances still have value.
That's kind of how I view it. I dont care if we go 0-5 in the preseason, but I'd rather we didnt. At least a win or two in the preseason at least gives the team some confidence I'd think. To me, its the individual performances that are key for the lower end of the roster guys. You have to see what we have in these guys. Team performance is important too, you want them to be on the same page. The end result though isn't the most important to me in preseason, it's seeing that everyone is on the same page, and working well together.
I think it does matter....those back-end players that win or lose the pre-season are a barometer of depth. Exceptions aside, and as an example our OL, depth matters A LOT in this league.
It depends on the coach and what they do for the game. If Belichick, decided that the majority of the preseason was about getting his back up QBs experience, would the record matter?
I don't think the overall pre-season record matters that much, however it is nice to get a win or two so the team at least tastes some success. I think there's more value in how your starters do vs the oppositions starters and also how some of the guys near the bottom of the roster perform. Good pre-seasons from some 3rd teamers can be the difference between making the final roster and getting cut.
For those basing their view on one or two specific instances they remember, you may want to read the linked article. It take into account nine-years worth of data from every game of every team in the league. Better sample data pool. Just sayin'.
I think that is important, I think Devlin is pretty decent, I'd like that belief validated and see if he eventually can be relied on to be Tannehill's number 2
They matter to me. I don't know, something about an organization that wants to win ANY game shows me something. I'd REALLY love a HOF game blowout, particularly since I live in San Antonio and surrounded by Cowboys fans (who, by the way, next to the Jests are the worse fans in the world IMO). Do they mean 'everything?' No, else they'd count toward season record, but the seed can be grown with the winning attitude and walking the talk...
I agree. Many pre-season contests are often dependent on what the Head Coach is looking to get out of a game. If the statistics are slanted toward better teams having better pre-season records, to me it's most likely a by-product of better teams often having the better depth.
Remember how bad we looked last preseason? Like really, really bad. Turns out we were a couple clutch kicks away from being a playoff team.
As an evaluation of Devlin I completely agree. It'll probably be the most we see from him all year. But as a season indicator of our win loss ratio? I mean, teams purposely avoid going for the tie, won't kick field goals if it results in a tie, or go fori it on 4th for no reason. These are glorified scrimmages that get too much air time IMO.
Context matters. The Bills under Levy were horrible preseason teams in terms of W/L records but great regular season teams. While the Dolphins under Shula did seem to win most preseason games in years they were good. IMO it comes down to understanding what the team is trying to do. Teams that are trying to win preseason games and succeed are probably better than teams that try to win preseason games and fail. I recall that Rams preseason. It was the first year I ever played fantasy football. I picked up Warner after watching that offense in preseason and ended up in the top 1% out of a +100,000 player league (salary cap league). I based my decision on how the starters looked. I wouldn't have cared if they'd lost every preseason game in the fourth quarter do to the failings of players 50 - 90. So IMO preseason matters, I just don't think the W/L record is necessarily what I would focus on (it would depend on the context).