Luckiest and Unluckiest teams in the NFL

[oochymp 2,393]

I found a couple interesting articles looking at how luck has played into this NFL season, I don't know anything about this source, but the articles are interesting, I'm including links at the bottom of this post so I won't go into the explanation, but it's worth clicking and reading

 

the writer looked at five factors: Pythagorean win percentage v. actual win percentage; Record in close games; Strength of schedule; Fumble recovery percentage; and turnover differential

 

here are the top five on both ends:

 

Luckiest:

1)

2)

3) :Patriots:

4)

5)

 

Article: Ranking the NFL’s Luckiest Teams in 2014 - The Sports Post

 

Unluckiest:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

 

Article: Ranking the NFL’s Unluckiest Teams in 2014 - The Sports Post

 

most interesting thing to me is seeing two sub-.500 teams on the luckiest five list and three teams at or above .500 on the unluckiest list

[Cherry 1,302]

With our injuries we gotta be bottom 5. Injured star WR. #2 out for year. RB out. TE out. RG out. RT out for at least a week. Star LB out. MLB out.

[Thanatos 2,847]

lmao this article.

 

The Cards are lucky? Gimme a break, all those injuries are not even a factor in this guy's definition of luck.

 

Sure, focus on Nugent missing a 36-yard FG- focus on one play at the end of a 75 minute game and ignore other lucky breaks for both teams during the game. Why is luck more of a factor at the end than the beginning?

Edited November 6, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

This dude claims the Pats to be the 3rd luckiest team in the league, but doesn't really have much to back it up with other than they're 2-0 in one possession games? lol.

 

I mean they've lost Mayo and Ridley for the year and Chandler Jones for maybe more than a month. And they have 4 blowouts during their 5 game winning streak. Fuck outta here with being the 3rd luckiest team in the league lmao.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Why would you be made at your team being lucky lol? Means they have a good shot at winning a super bowl. That and it's not like the dude is hating on the Pats. He just put together some algorithms.

 

 

 

But this is where some critical thinking comes into play. The Patriots are really, REALLY good. They have absolutely been lucky this year, but it would be disingenuous to list them at No. 1 because it would imply the Patriots didn’t get to 7–2 by merit. They have the best record in the AFC because they are really, really, REALLY good. If they’ve gotten lucky along with way? Well, it happens.
Read more at http://thesportspost.com/blogs/view/nfl-2014-luckiest-teams#Wspg3fQVVBQKpqXH.99

 

 

As for Arizona it is pretty insane how few INT's their 3 QB's have thrown. I think the Eagles probably would have been pretty high on this list last year lol, but I think all those picks Foles lucked out of last year came back and bit him in the ass this year lol.

[oochymp 2,393]

With our injuries we gotta be bottom 5. Injured star WR. #2 out for year. RB out. TE out. RG out. RT out for at least a week. Star LB out. MLB out.

it should be noted that the author was very upfront about not taking injuries into account largely because of how subjective they are, ie which has a bigger impact losing your starting RT or losing your top WR? you can make a case for either depending on the player so he limited the analysis to quantifiable measures

 

and Piggly, his justification for the Pats' inclusion is largely that they've recovered 2/3 of fumbles, a number he expects to be around 50-50, and have a +12 turnover differential, which he argues is unsustainable, I'm not sure I agree with him about turnover differential, particularly when you're talking about a team like the Patriots that's always careful with the ball, but that's what he looked at, and then there's the paragraph sean quoted basically saying that "lucky" isn't necessarily inconsistent with "good"

[Mentch 42]

Great idea for a thread. Saints have definitely been one of the most unlucky teams in the league but they have kinda brought some of it on themselves. Despite all of that, they still have a better record than any team in the division, including the Panthers, who are actually one of the luckiest teams in the league by the list. I think that says a lot about both teams and the state of that division in general

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I actually agree with this article almost completely. I'm surprised the Lions didn't crack his top 5 luckiest though. They've outplayed their Pythagorean wins, and have an amazing record in close games.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I disagree entirely with the notion that one-possession games are luck.

 

As a fan of a team who is absofreakinglutely terrible at one possession games in the last three years, that statement is complete and utter dogshit.

 

Good coaching wins close games. The Panthers aren't sub .250 in winning percentage in close games since Rivera got here because we've been unlucky. Their coaches have no clue how to finish out a game. We are lucky when we do win one occasionally, (See: Patriots @ Panthers, last year), in spite of the coaching staff.

 

I mostly disagree with the idea that turnover differential is unsustainable and is solely about luck. That is also utter crap. Look at the Saints when they won the Superbowl. A ballhawking defense is not, necessarily, going to crumble. Sure it can, but so can a good defense all around. This also doesn't take into account the other side of the equation- and its a hell of a lot more QBs than just the three he named that don't turn the ball over that much.

 

Fumble recoveries being 50/50 basically- that i agree with.

 

Whatever this article is about, it isn't luck. It's some arbitrary statistic this guy has come up with and is calling luck.

 

Focusing on one play at the end of a game and ignoring the lucky breaks throughout the rest of the game is particularly stupid, lol.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Sarge+ 3,436]

How about every game Andrew Luck plays? Are those lucky enough with all the missed turnovers? lol. They outplayed the Giants on MNF, but damn, the Giants missed 2 easy INTs, another one that probably could also be called easy, and a fumble recovery. Luck is a good QB, but damn, I would like to see him pay for his mistakes like every other QB does. Every game I watch he gets insanely lucky that he doesn't get picked multiple times. Not hating on the guy. I said he's a good QB. I just think sooner or later some of these errant throws are going to haunt him.

[oochymp 2,393]

Yeah, I was really surprised to see record in close games included in his list but I think I can understand where he's coming from. He seems to be trying to focus on stuff that's out of the control of teams and terming that 'luck' which I don't think is a perfect term, but I also don't think it's too far off. With that in mind, looking at close games makes some sense, every game involves random bounces, bad calls, and all sorts of other stuff that's out of the players' control. In a blowout, these random factors don't end up having much of an impact but in a close game a bad bounce or two can swing the game, so in that sense looking at close games as an indication of how regularly the bounces go a certain team's way makes sense. I don't think it's a perfect measure, largely because I agree with you Thana about coaching having a huge impact on close games and I generally think that when a game is close a good team will find a way to get the win, but I can understand where the guy is coming from.

 

That said, since he's trying to measure stuff that's outside of the teams' control I don't know why he doesn't find some way to measure injuries, which almost always fall in that category, I think he could pretty easily throw in a measure based on games missed weighting for starters or major contributors.

 

I also think to Sarge's point factoring in dropped interceptions would be interesting, but I think that kinda falls under turnover differential, though it's rather imprecise.

Edited November 6, 2014 by oochymp

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Nothing he uses he came up with, this is stuff that analysts all over use all the time.

 

The only thing that has held up against the "close games aren't lucky" theory is having an elite QB. Luck absolutely plays a big factor in most team's overall success in close games. Regardless of coaching, or talent.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Nothing he uses he came up with, this is stuff that analysts all over use all the time.

 

The only thing that has held up against the "close games aren't lucky" theory is having an elite QB. Luck absolutely plays a big factor in most team's overall success in close games. Regardless of coaching, or talent.

Really.

 

Explain the Panthers piss poor record in close games since Rivera got there, if its not on the coaching staff at all.

[Mentch 42]

I actually agree with this article almost completely. I'm surprised the Lions didn't crack his top 5 luckiest though. They've outplayed their Pythagorean wins, and have an amazing record in close games.

I was surprised you guys didnt make the list either, especially after the Saints blew it and they got bailed out on their own mistake in London. Probably has something to do with their inability to kick the football through the first few weeks

[Jayrus 51]

Unluckiest team in the NFL :

 

Yes, I know they're doing well, or were until the last couple weeks. but never have I seen a team felled so consistantly year after year by pure bad luck. Many teams destroy themselves with bad mangement, but the Cowboys recently have failed through little fault of their own. Laundry lists of player injuries every year. Players who were studs one year going bust the next. Inexplicable mistakes resulting in snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory. It boggles the mind how one team with so much good can end up drawing the short end so consistantly.

 

Even now it's happening again. Injuries are piling up. Romo's down with back problems. It seems like these guys just cannot catch a break, and every time they get going something happens to derail them yet again.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Jayrus

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Really.

 

Explain the Panthers piss poor record in close games since Rivera got there, if its not on the coaching staff at all.

 

It has nothing to do with the coach's decisions, or the plays called and everything to do with the fact that things just happen. Guess what? The Panthers have just been really unlucky in the past two years before this last one. And last year? Look no further then the Patriots game as proof.

 

Regardless of win, lose, draw, on a field goal or not. Whatever the outcome may be, if it's a close game, luck (or lack of) usually plays the biggest role in whoever won (or lost).

 

Dropped passes, fumbles (and whoever recovers them), dropped INTs, slight overthrow, slight under-throw, missed easy tackles, missed call by the officials, etc etc etc, all happen within the closing minutes (or are common throughout the game if it's close) of games regardless of what the coach's call or decision may be.

 

All of those things are erratic, and happen whether teams want them to happen or not, and are unsustainable ways to win (or lose) games. Which means whoever comes out on top, got lucky. This does not, in any way mean that the coach, or players had no part in the loss, but it often gets overstated.

Edited November 7, 2014 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I was surprised you guys didnt make the list either, especially after the Saints blew it and they got bailed out on their own mistake in London. Probably has something to do with their inability to kick the football through the first few weeks

 

Using this guy's criteria, I'm not as surprised anymore. Saints and Falcons are the only two games where the Lions didn't benefit from the mistakes, or chocking of the other teams. And those are offset by games like the Bills' game. Close games aside, the Lions don't really have anything working for them that would constitute them being high on any "lucky" list.

 

They aren't getting a crazy amount of turnovers, SOS isn't hard, but it certainly isn't Cleveland easy, and their point differential is about where you'd expect a 6-2 team without a high octane offense to be.

[oochymp 2,393]

so I got curious as to just how bad Rivera's Panthers are in close games, so I looked it up using Pro Football Reference and here's what I got as the Panthers' record in close games, which I defined as a seven point differential or less, in each season since Rivera took over:

 

2011: 1-5

2012: 2-6

2013: 5-2

2014: 2-1-1

Total: 10-14-1

 

while that's below the expected .500, it's really not that far considering the small sample size that the football schedule creates, I think it's also worth noting that the Panthers have been involved in four 8 point games (still one score) in that time and are 3-1 in those, which brings the average really close to .500 (13-15-1)

[Thanatos 2,847]

And its a total coincidence that in '11 and '12 he played not to lose and in '13 he got insanely lucky on two close endings and actually played for the throat in the others?

 

Also a 7 point game where they get points in garbage time doesn't count.

 

Close games are not defined by luck. Sure, luck can and occasionally does give one team the shaft and the other team the win, but the better coached team will win more often than not.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Mentch 42]

Unluckiest team in the NFL :

 

Yes, I know they're doing well, or were until the last couple weeks. but never have I seen a team felled so consistantly year after year by pure bad luck. Many teams destroy themselves with bad mangement, but the Cowboys recently have failed through little fault of their own. Laundry lists of player injuries every year. Players who were studs one year going bust the next. Inexplicable mistakes resulting in snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory. It boggles the mind how one team with so much good can end up drawing the short end so consistantly.

 

Even now it's happening again. Injuries are piling up. Romo's down with back problems. It seems like these guys just cannot catch a break, and every time they get going something happens to derail them yet again.

 

I completely disagree with this. A Cowboys fan tried to tell me that they're cursed, and I don't buy it at all. When you go 8-8 for 3 straight seasons, you're not cursed, you're mediocre, especially when you do all of the following:

 

 

2011

 

- blow a 14 point lead with a fumble on the goal line combined with a blocked punt returned for a TD and a gimme interception against the Jets

 

- choke away a 27-3 lead at home with 2 pick 6s and a 3rd interception to set up the game winning touchdown against the Lions

 

- give up an 80 yard game winning drive to a Patriots offense that has struggled all game

 

- ice your own kicker and then give up a long touchdown pass in overtime against the Cardinals

 

- give up 2 TDs in the last 4 minutes, blow a sure touchdown because the ball was "lost in the stadium lights", and have the tying field goal blocked against the Giants

 

 

2012

 

- give up a kickoff return for a TD, miss a 2 point conversion, and miss the game winning field goal against the Ravens

 

- fall behind 23-0, rally, then fail on 4th down and have your receiver land with one thumb out of bounds on the game winning TD against the Giants (fyi, I do think that Bryant's thumb being on the line was truly unlucky, but it never should have come down to that)

 

- give up a long drive to grind out the clock marked by a penalty on 3rd down against the Falcons

 

- throw a floating and easy pick to seal the fate of the 2012 season against the Redskins (but would you really expect Romo not to throw a pick in that situation?)

 

 

2013

 

- give up 401 passing yards to Philip Rivers and blow a chance to cut the lead to 2 with 2 mins left with a fumble on the goal line against the Chargers

 

- give up 414 passing yards to Peyton Manning and throw an INT inside your own 20 to let Manning run out the clock and kick the game winning field goal against the Broncos

 

- seemingly seal the game twice with long TD passes, only to give up TD drives to let them back in it, then stop them on 4th down, commit a false start penalty on 3rd down to stop the clock, kick a field goal, let them drive the entire length of the field in under a minute, and give up 329 receiving yards to 1 PLAYER against the Lions

 

- blow a 26-3 lead at home, audible a run play to a pass play that results in an INT, give up 300 yards passing and 4 TDs to MATT FLYNN, and then throw another pick to seal the deal against the Packers

 

- actually hold an incredible offense to only 24 points and be within striking distance trailing by 2 points with 2 mins left and throw a game ending pick on the very first play to seal yet another 8-8 season against the Eagles

 

 

 

When you do all of that, you're not cursed, you're a mediocre football team, nothing more, nothing less. Cowboys fans always try to point to the amount of close losses they have, but if they had been anything more than a mediocre football team from 2011-13, they wouldn't have managed to blow so many games each and every year. They had TONS of chances to win multiple games in those situations and blew almost all of them. I don't think Romo is the problem for this team but he's making it harder and harder for me to defend him with all his late game mistakes. And yes, I know he's had some of the best 4th quarter statistics over the last 3 seasons, but none of that means anything if you can't drive your team down the field when it matters most. The Cowboys are far from cursed, they have a defense that has continually let them down and a quarterback that doesnt make mistakes often, but when he does, he makes mistakes at the worst possible times

It would be one thing if they were doing everything right and still couldn't win games but they're shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly with all the mistakes they make, and that's why they finished 8-8 for a 3rd consecutive year despite all the talent on their roster and likely won't do much in the playoffs if they get there this season. Turnovers and big plays have continued to haunt them this season, and they have given me no reason to think that trend will magically end. It's why they fell behind so quickly against the 49ers, it's why Seattle was able to stay in the game despite seemingly getting dominated, it's why they fell behind 21-0 against the Rams, it's why they lost to the Redskins with Colt McCoy, and it's why they couldn't do anything offensively against the Cardinals last week

[BC 331]

How about every game Andrew Luck plays? Are those lucky enough with all the missed turnovers? lol. They outplayed the Giants on MNF, but damn, the Giants missed 2 easy INTs, another one that probably could also be called easy, and a fumble recovery. Luck is a good QB, but damn, I would like to see him pay for his mistakes like every other QB does. Every game I watch he gets insanely lucky that he doesn't get picked multiple times. Not hating on the guy. I said he's a good QB. I just think sooner or later some of these errant throws are going to haunt him.

 

I see what he did there

 

The Rams man. Considering the trades they have pulled off. The value of the draft classes they get. But back when they had the #1 pick Locker ended up not coming out but would have been terrible for them probably anyway, but they end up with Bradford who's not that good when healthy, is rarely healthy, and they've seemed to have quarterback health problems since 2001. This team could have been soaring if for better luck at QB.

[Phins4life 271]

Based on the number of single possession losses the Dolphins have been in in the past 2 seasons, including several overtime games, they could be talked about as well. They've been in the hunt 2 straight seasons, but have just been unable to cash in when the clock is winding down...literally and metaphorically.

 

With that said, I despise the term "luck" when discussing the results for winning and losing teams. At the end of the day, the "good fortune" that befalls the winning team in a close game is more often based on a few more good play calls, a few more disciplined throws and routes, a few more sound technique tackles, etc. You can often trace a team's close loss back to certain moments in the game that were just bad decisions instead of bad luck. Miami is a prime example. I wonder how many more nice throws Tannehill could have gotten off if he wasn't so preoccupied with just avoiding the sack. Or how many of those damn screen plays we could have stopped with better zone discipline. Ultimately, they were their own worst enemy. Just my take, though.

[Wattafan 28]

I found a couple interesting articles looking at how luck has played into this NFL season, I don't know anything about this source, but the articles are interesting, I'm including links at the bottom of this post so I won't go into the explanation, but it's worth clicking and reading

 

the writer looked at five factors: Pythagorean win percentage v. actual win percentage; Record in close games; Strength of schedule; Fumble recovery percentage; and turnover differential

 

here are the top five on both ends:

 

Luckiest:

1)

2)

3) :Patriots:

4)

5)

 

Article: Ranking the NFL’s Luckiest Teams in 2014 - The Sports Post

 

Unluckiest:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

 

Article: Ranking the NFL’s Unluckiest Teams in 2014 - The Sports Post

 

most interesting thing to me is seeing two sub-.500 teams on the luckiest five list and three teams at or above .500 on the unluckiest list

If Texans were lucky they would have won that OT against Dallas and also won that close one against the Colts.

Luck to me is overall, not just half a season - for example, Indianapolis Colts had Peyton Manning and then sucked for just one season, and look who was available to them in the draft. They will have the services of an elite QB for 25 years while some teams have never had one.

I guess you could say Texans got lucky with Watt, but 10 other teams bypassed him.

Yep, sour grapes.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

I see what he did there

 

The Rams man. Considering the trades they have pulled off. The value of the draft classes they get. But back when they had the #1 pick Locker ended up not coming out but would have been terrible for them probably anyway, but they end up with Bradford who's not that good when healthy, is rarely healthy, and they've seemed to have quarterback health problems since 2001. This team could have been soaring if for better luck at QB.

the difference between Locker and Bradford is minimal at best, both players are solid when they play but are hurt waaaaay too often, I'm not sure the Rams would be in a much different position if Locker had come out that year

 

If Texans were lucky they would have won that OT against Dallas and also won that close one against the Colts.

Luck to me is overall, not just half a season - for example, Indianapolis Colts had Peyton Manning and then sucked for just one season, and look who was available to them in the draft. They will have the services of an elite QB for 25 years while some teams have never had one.

I guess you could say Texans got lucky with Watt, but 10 other teams bypassed him.

Yep, sour grapes.

I agree, when you talk about lucky franchises in the long term I think the conversation has to start with the Colts, at least over recent history, getting to go from 13 years with Peyton Manning to however many they get out of Luck with only one shitty year in between is something franchises dream about

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

And its a total coincidence that in '11 and '12 he played not to lose and in '13 he got insanely lucky on two close endings and actually played for the throat in the others?

 

Also a 7 point game where they get points in garbage time doesn't count.

 

Close games are not defined by luck. Sure, luck can and occasionally does give one team the shaft and the other team the win, but the better coached team will win more often than not.

 

I'm not sure why you keep saying that either he, or I am implying that this is always the case. Neither one of us, have said that luck is the only factor. All I've said is that luck plays the biggest factor when winning most close games.

 

That in no way shape of form means that nothing else plays a part.

 

Based on the number of single possession losses the Dolphins have been in in the past 2 seasons, including several overtime games, they could be talked about as well. They've been in the hunt 2 straight seasons, but have just been unable to cash in when the clock is winding down...literally and metaphorically.

 

With that said, I despise the term "luck" when discussing the results for winning and losing teams. At the end of the day, the "good fortune" that befalls the winning team in a close game is more often based on a few more good play calls, a few more disciplined throws and routes, a few more sound technique tackles, etc. You can often trace a team's close loss back to certain moments in the game that were just bad decisions instead of bad luck. Miami is a prime example. I wonder how many more nice throws Tannehill could have gotten off if he wasn't so preoccupied with just avoiding the sack. Or how many of those damn screen plays we could have stopped with better zone discipline. Ultimately, they were their own worst enemy. Just my take, though.

 

The fact of the matter is that close games, as he put it himself in his article, are statistical randoms.

 

Regardless of who has the better coaches, the better team, the better players, if the game is close, one bounce going your way can and often does make the difference between winning or losing. That's the definition of luck.