Preseason Correlation to Regular Season

[adam]

I kept seeing the media talk about how the preseason record doesn't necessarily correlate to regular season success. So I thought about looking at it from something else that is a good measure of success over time (score differential). So I looked at all teams which allowed 40 or more points than their opponents in the preseason and see how they fared in the regular season (and I think there is some correlation there). Take a look:

 

2015

PIT -49 (10-6, WC)

NO -47 (7-9)

STL -45 (7-9)

 

2014

BUF -41 (9-7)

KC -48 (9-7)

DAL -56 (12-4, DIV)

CHI -41 (5-11)

 

2013

JAX -51 (4-12)

SD -44 (9-7)

TB -49 (4-12)

ATL -43 (4-12)

 

2012

NYJ -57 (6-10)

BUF -60 (6-10)

MIA -53 (7-9)

KC -55 (2-14)

 

2011

CIN -44 (9-7, WC)

JAX -43 (5-11)

OAK -57 (8-8)

KC -48 (7-9)

 

Since 2011, there have been 19 teams that had a pts differential of -40 (or more) during the preseason. Of those 19 teams, only 6 teams had winning records in the regular season (32%), 12 had losing records (63%), and 1 ended 8-8 (5%). Since "a winning record" doesn't really show too much, how about how many actually made the playoffs?

 

Only 3 teams made the playoffs (16%), and only 1 won their Division (5%).

 

The highest record of those 19 teams was 12-4, and only 2 teams had 10 or more wins. The cumulative record of those 19 teams were 130-174, or an average record of 7-9.

 

 

Right now there are 5 teams in danger of joining this group:

 

CLE, NYG, CHI, NO, and ARZ

 

I don't know of any other preseason stat that is 95% to 5% when compared to the regular season, but it looks like -40 means you will have only a 5% chance to win the Division and only a 16% chance to make the playoffs.

 

What you say?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I looked at this similarly but more specifically how John Fox has done as a head coach for preseason and he's about .500 when it comes to career (something like 27-23ish). I didn't see how he did in the preseason before any regular season where he went over .500, especially during the two Super Bowl runs he made with Carolina or Denver.

 

But I do know that although He had a pretty well built team in Denver with Peyton eventually coming along he did manage to put some good regular seasons together with the likes of Jake Delhomme and Tim Tebow. Not to say Cutler is the root of the issue (not at all); just that usually your supporting cast can help significantly more when you're making those winning season runs.

 

And one last point I thought of earlier today while watching a Cutler interview from yesterday. He said they were operating about 67.3% on offense yesterday and had a lot more to show that they hadn't yet. I certainly hope so Jay because what we saw yesterday wasn't pretty.

[AZ54]

We lack depth. A year ago we lacked starters. Now if we have our starters out there we're competitive. If we don't, we're not. I'm not going to worry a lot about Jacoby Glenn playing such soft coverage against the Chiefs because I hope to never see him on the field again this year. Replay this game with Fuller and Callahan out there and it's not quite so easy for the Chiefs offense. Throw McPhee and Floyd into the mix especially Floyd who can run with Smith.

 

OTOH I have to worry about Ted Larsen who got blown up everywhere he went on the field. If Kyle Long is starting, then hopefully Edison did well enough to put Larsen on the bench. Larsen is all he's going to be, and I've seen enough of him here in AZ to know he won't get better. He's ok as a reserve for a few games just because of his experience. There isn't much behind Larsen yet. I have to watch the game again to see how the backup Oline players performed.