The Giants will insist that they are not surprised how well they've played after a bad start-they've won 3 in a row and actually played a lot better in the Cardinal game even if they lost; they hadn't wiped out their mistakes then-but if this is true they were alone. No one else believed the Giants had a prayer.
Before the season started I certainly wasn't surprised that they weren't expected to win 12 games and be a super bowl contender. However, I was surprised that all the experts seemed to vie with each other to offer the most bearish prospects for the Giants possible. On Mike and Mike, one of the Mikes-I think Gallick-had them going 6-10 while Mike Goldberg had them at 4-12 which definitely seemed like overkill to me. Most prognosticators were similarly bearish.
Now there has been some notice as Eli has proven all the critics wrong and mastered the West Coast offense scheme, well, masterfully. However, there's still a lot of bearishness-I see that the power rankings put out by Bleachers, still has them ranked only 20th out of 32 teams with a worse ranking than the Saints, something I just can't understand.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2176247-nfl-power-rankings-where-does-every-team-stand-heading-into-week-6/page/18
Ralph Vacchiano looked at the Giants along with Dallas and the Eagles as 3 teams in what is shaping up as a very interesting NFC East race. Still, this comment by him irked me a little:
"Nearly left for dead after a 0-2 start, their offense kicked into gear as they rolled off three straight wins against inferior opponents."
That was in today's-Wednesday, October 8, 2014-NY Daily News, pg. 49. I couldn't find the exact quote online.
This jibe-'inferior opponents'-gets me going a little bit. None of these teams were considered inferior when the Giants played them. Now the Redskins are considered inferior-they actually got a lot of credit for only losing by 10 points at home to Seattle-but they were supposed to be a pretty good team before the season started and were a favorite against the Giants before they shocked the world by demolishing them 45-14.
Actually the fact that Washington was so highly regarded before the season gets me going just a little too. I mean this team had lost their last 8 games last year to finish 3-13 and the Giants swept them-the G-Men did start last year 0-6 but at least finished the year respectably at 7-9. So why were the Giants treated like the 3-13 team?
The Giants other two wins were against Houston. Are the Texans an inferior team? When they played the Giants were 0-2 and the Texans were 2-0-understandably the Texans were favored. This last week the Cowboys blew a double digit lead and had to outlast the Texans in overtime. As for the third team the Jints have beaten, the Falcons, Atlanta too was much more highly regarded than the Giants to start the year. The point is that none of these teams were considered inferior teams to the Giants when they played. In fact the Bleacher Report has the Giants at 20th while Atlanta is 16th and the Saints at 15th.
I do see that Fancy Stats ranked at 6th which would seem to be too optimistic but I think the way they calculate power rankings is very intuitive and might make more sense than how many of these rankings are compiled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/10/07/nfl-power-rankings-colts-packers-move-up-in-the-fancy-stats-rankings-after-week-5/
They focus not just won-loss records but margins of victory both of a team and its opponents. If they're right then the Giants may have some more surprises in store for all the naysayers.
As far as 'inferior opponents' are concerned-the Cowboys haven't played a better class of teams. They struggled to beat a Houston team that Vacchiano considers inferior while the Giants blew them out-so Fancy Stats would give the Giants big points relative to Dallas on Houston. Meanwhile who else have the Cowboys beaten? New Orleans at home-the Saints are a terrible road team-the Tennessee Titans and St. Louis.
Here is the bullish case for the Giants. They were picked to be awful in 2007 and 2011 as well.
I continue to have much more luck making predictions and bets in football than in the market, certainly lately. I did get the market move this week basically right. I was skeptical that Friday's strong nonfarm payroll numbers would end the market selloff and that has proven correct. At the end of the day we already knew the fundamentals of the US economy are strong.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-september-nonfarm-payroll-surprise.html
The worry was a slowing Europe-getting whacked on Russia-Ukraine. Today's numbers were again terrible for Germany which has been the engine of European growth.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102068805
Then we also have Ebola, a slowing China, a disapapointing Japan, Abenomics notwithstanding. Another one of Scott Sumner's 'victories.'
UPDATE: We;ll see how the market responds to the next to big events: the Fed minutes today at 2 p.m. and Alcoa profits. Charles Evans talked today about leaving interest rates at zero until 2016. I guess if the Fed did go that way it could be bullish. Alcoa (AA) will give the market some clues as to whetther and how much the multinationals are being hurt by a falling euro-and so a rising dollar.
Before the season started I certainly wasn't surprised that they weren't expected to win 12 games and be a super bowl contender. However, I was surprised that all the experts seemed to vie with each other to offer the most bearish prospects for the Giants possible. On Mike and Mike, one of the Mikes-I think Gallick-had them going 6-10 while Mike Goldberg had them at 4-12 which definitely seemed like overkill to me. Most prognosticators were similarly bearish.
Now there has been some notice as Eli has proven all the critics wrong and mastered the West Coast offense scheme, well, masterfully. However, there's still a lot of bearishness-I see that the power rankings put out by Bleachers, still has them ranked only 20th out of 32 teams with a worse ranking than the Saints, something I just can't understand.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2176247-nfl-power-rankings-where-does-every-team-stand-heading-into-week-6/page/18
Ralph Vacchiano looked at the Giants along with Dallas and the Eagles as 3 teams in what is shaping up as a very interesting NFC East race. Still, this comment by him irked me a little:
"Nearly left for dead after a 0-2 start, their offense kicked into gear as they rolled off three straight wins against inferior opponents."
That was in today's-Wednesday, October 8, 2014-NY Daily News, pg. 49. I couldn't find the exact quote online.
This jibe-'inferior opponents'-gets me going a little bit. None of these teams were considered inferior when the Giants played them. Now the Redskins are considered inferior-they actually got a lot of credit for only losing by 10 points at home to Seattle-but they were supposed to be a pretty good team before the season started and were a favorite against the Giants before they shocked the world by demolishing them 45-14.
Actually the fact that Washington was so highly regarded before the season gets me going just a little too. I mean this team had lost their last 8 games last year to finish 3-13 and the Giants swept them-the G-Men did start last year 0-6 but at least finished the year respectably at 7-9. So why were the Giants treated like the 3-13 team?
The Giants other two wins were against Houston. Are the Texans an inferior team? When they played the Giants were 0-2 and the Texans were 2-0-understandably the Texans were favored. This last week the Cowboys blew a double digit lead and had to outlast the Texans in overtime. As for the third team the Jints have beaten, the Falcons, Atlanta too was much more highly regarded than the Giants to start the year. The point is that none of these teams were considered inferior teams to the Giants when they played. In fact the Bleacher Report has the Giants at 20th while Atlanta is 16th and the Saints at 15th.
I do see that Fancy Stats ranked at 6th which would seem to be too optimistic but I think the way they calculate power rankings is very intuitive and might make more sense than how many of these rankings are compiled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/10/07/nfl-power-rankings-colts-packers-move-up-in-the-fancy-stats-rankings-after-week-5/
They focus not just won-loss records but margins of victory both of a team and its opponents. If they're right then the Giants may have some more surprises in store for all the naysayers.
As far as 'inferior opponents' are concerned-the Cowboys haven't played a better class of teams. They struggled to beat a Houston team that Vacchiano considers inferior while the Giants blew them out-so Fancy Stats would give the Giants big points relative to Dallas on Houston. Meanwhile who else have the Cowboys beaten? New Orleans at home-the Saints are a terrible road team-the Tennessee Titans and St. Louis.
Here is the bullish case for the Giants. They were picked to be awful in 2007 and 2011 as well.
I continue to have much more luck making predictions and bets in football than in the market, certainly lately. I did get the market move this week basically right. I was skeptical that Friday's strong nonfarm payroll numbers would end the market selloff and that has proven correct. At the end of the day we already knew the fundamentals of the US economy are strong.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-september-nonfarm-payroll-surprise.html
The worry was a slowing Europe-getting whacked on Russia-Ukraine. Today's numbers were again terrible for Germany which has been the engine of European growth.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102068805
Then we also have Ebola, a slowing China, a disapapointing Japan, Abenomics notwithstanding. Another one of Scott Sumner's 'victories.'
UPDATE: We;ll see how the market responds to the next to big events: the Fed minutes today at 2 p.m. and Alcoa profits. Charles Evans talked today about leaving interest rates at zero until 2016. I guess if the Fed did go that way it could be bullish. Alcoa (AA) will give the market some clues as to whetther and how much the multinationals are being hurt by a falling euro-and so a rising dollar.
No comments:
Post a Comment