playoff hopes

[Spider-Dan]

Discussing "quality wins" at all is nonsense. NFL = BCS. Strength of schedule is in no way a predictor of winning the Superbowl or even making the playoffs.

IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING POST IN THE SAME THREAD:

Miami now has 7 remaining games against teams .500 or better, and they couldn't beat a team that was 2-4 at home.

Strength of schedule is irrelevant, except when it's not!

[EKnight]

Spider, do you ever read things at face value, or do you always put your spin on them and reach to interpret things that aren't there? At no point in that post did I say ANYTHING about using strength of schedule to predict playoff chances. I also didn't mention ANYTHING about "quality wins." You're stretching to find something that isn't there simply for the sake of being disputatious.

Interesting that Dave agreed with me, and yet you had nothing in repsonse to his post. In fact, several people have disagreed with your stance in the Chiefs thread, and you seem to only want to argue with me in that one as well. News flash- just because you personally have a petty grievance with the person saying something, does not invalidate what is being said. -EK

[MikeO]

^^^You are implying that since Miami lost to a 2-4 team they can't beat any of the 7 teams left on their schedule that are currently .500 or better. Hence putting value in "strength of schedule". Spider is right

[EKnight]

^^^You are implying that since Miami lost to a 2-4 team they can't beat the 7 teams left on their schedule that are currently .500 or better. Hence putting value in "strength of schedule". Spider is right

Oh, look, MikeO is trolling me in another thread. I am actually not implying that they can't beat those teams. I'm flat out stating that they will not beat all of them, and that the "hardest" part of their schedule is not behind them as some of you have stated. There is no "easy" portion to their schedule this year. It is pretty well balanced with teams that are going to give them problems throughout the season, which I mentioned more than once in this thread. -EK

[MikeO]

Oh, look, MikeO is trolling me in another thread. I am actually not implying that they can't beat those teams. I'm flat out stating that they will not beat all of them, and that the "hardest" part of their schedule is not behind them as some of you have stated. There is no "easy" portion to their schedule this year. It is pretty well balanced with teams that are going to give them problems throughout the season, which I mentioned more than once in this thread. -EK

Only one troll in this village...you! My last post wasn't an attack on you personally, just your opinion/stance on a subject.

You say strength of schedule is silly in one breath then in another you use it to prop up an opinion. So either strength of schedule matters or it doesn't. You are saying one thing then using it as an example as another. That's all Spider is pointing out and I am agreeing with.

[EKnight]

Where did I use it to prop anything? You're reading something that isn't there. Let me spell it out for you:

1. There's no such thing as quality wins in the NFL. This isn't the BCS. At year's end, a win is a win and it's your record that gets you in the playoffs.

2. Throughout the early portion of this thread, several people mentioned that the "hard" part of Miami's schedule was done and the "easy" part was now ahead. 7 games against .500 or better is not "easy," especially if you struggle against 2-4.

There's no mention of strength of schedule there to validate one point or another. Read whatever else you want into it as you always do, but you'll be reading something not there. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

At no point in that post did I say ANYTHING about using strength of schedule to predict playoff chances.

Specifically, you state that:

1) the record of a team that Miami lost to is relevant
2) the records of the upcoming teams on Miami's schedule is relevant

That is the definition of a "strength of schedule" argument.

You later claim that "a win is a win," but if so, then isn't a loss a loss?  So why are you bringing up BUF's record?

[Dave Gray]

OK, everyone has made their points, here.  I think it's time to move on...