dex

September 17th, 2008 at 8:19 AM ^

"

Since the playoffs expanded to 12 teams 18 years ago, only 19 teams
have advanced after starting 0-2. That's basically one team a year. The
New York Giants were that team in 2007, and I believe they enjoyed a fair amount of success in the postseason.

But
do you actually believe the Lions are more capable of a recovery than
other 0-2 teams such as San Diego, Jacksonville, Minnesota, Cleveland
or even Seattle?"

 

Ok. I don't think the Lions will make the playoffs. But, this is a piss poor argument. They won't make the playoffs because they won't win a games. Because they aren't a good football team.

 

The fact it is "about" one team a year that makes the playoffs after starting 0-2 means nothing, at all, to whether they make the playoffs. There is no rule that only one team starting 0-2 can make the playoffs. The Jaguars, who play in the damn AFC, are not going to be directly responsible for keeping the Lions out of the playoffs. It's completely irrelevant. 

 

I'm not going to look it up, because I don't get paid to write about this shit for a living, but isn't it entirely possible that like 5 teams started 0-2 and made the playoffs one year, followed by 4 years where no teams did it? 

Drew Sharp, proving that even when he is right, he's still a moron. 

ThWard

September 17th, 2008 at 11:45 AM ^

Drew Sharp is an asshat. 

Now, with formalities out of the way, it's irrelevant whether one 0-2 team has made the playoffs every year for 18 years, or whether 12 0-2 teams made the playoffs in one year, and 7 0-2 teams made the playoffs another year, and no other 0-2 teams have made the playoffs again.  The point is just, in the modern NFL, it's rare to make the playoffs at 0-2.  The reason he's stating that is because, in the context of Kitna, who has been a tireless supporter of the new regime and has been optimistic (to a fault), Sharp is suggesting that 1.) his optimism is waning and 2.) the rarity of an 0-2 team making the playoffs probably adds to Kitna's pessimism.  That is, the point of the article is that Kitna is becoming frustrated, and likely pessimistic.  Sharp's just pointing out another reason for him to be pessimistic-- I don't read the article to suggest that the "0-2 record" thing is the SOLE reason for his pessimism, or even a major reason.

 To that end, of course Sharp and others (presumably Kitna, since the point of the article is about his faith cracking-- or I think that's the point) think the Lions won't make the playoffs because of the Lions' inherent suckitude.  I read the 0-2 stat as just bolstering (unnecessarliy, probably) the idea that the Lions 1.) won't make the playoffs and 2.) point #1 may be wearing on Kitna, the former posterboy of optimism

 

But yeah, Drew Sharp sucks.

dex

September 17th, 2008 at 12:40 PM ^

I don't dispute that 0-2 makes it tough. I agree it will be tough. But Sharp's reasoning is that San Diego or Jacksonville is "more likely to recover" is asinine. It doesn't matter if SD recovers to make the playoffs. There is no hard rule that only one 0-2 can make it. It's like saying only one 12 seed usually beats a 5 in the NCAA tournament, therefore once the upset has happened it can't happen again that year. It doesn't make any sense. It might work out that way, but it's not a valid reason.

I guess my big problem is there are about 100 reasons the Lions won't make the playoffs, and the fact that "San Diego is more likely recover from 0-2" isn't even close to the most valid or interesting one. 

ThWard

September 17th, 2008 at 2:25 PM ^

The 0-2 "rarity" point is probably #1000 on the list of reasons the Lions probably won't make the playoffs.  I just don't think Sharp's inclusion of the stat suggests he thinks it's a big reason... he includes it because it appeals to lazy, nonthinkers, and it is done so under the guise of "research."  All reasons why Sharp sucks.  So no real disagreement, I just don't see much of an "argument" in his piece. 

billsquared

September 17th, 2008 at 4:52 PM ^

See, I appreciate that the Freep has started consistently labeling articles with their columnists names, at least in the "opinion" columns. I can't tell you how many times I've been saved from having to read Sharp's dreck by seeing "DREW SHARP: I'm a moron, and so am I" (paraphrased) in the link. In fact, if it looks reasonably likely that an un-named link might be Sharp, I'll actually click into the Sports page just to make absolutely sure.

Friends don't let friends read Drew Sharp.

billsquared

September 17th, 2008 at 4:55 PM ^

Not like I really need to justify this, but even if it's a subject I'm interested in, I won't read Sharp blatherings (online at least) simply for the reason that maybe if enough people actually STOP clicking on his articles simply for the purposes of being outraged, he'll go away.

I know, faint hope, but still.