Who Were The Luckiest NFL Teams In 2011?

I do think you make your own luck for the most part, but fact is the football is shaped funny and will bounce in odd ways …

To win consistently year in and out you have to be very good and solid. Thing is sometimes average + getting on a roll + a little luck = Super Bowl in any given year.

I do not believe that things will get better for the Cowboys: at least not immediately. Dallas defeated one team that went to the playoffs last season, but other than the improbable overtime win at San Francisco, Dallas lost its other eight games against teams that finished 8-8 or better.

In other words, the Cowboys beat up on teams that they were supposed to defeat, but lost to every team that did not post a losing record. In 2012, the Cowboys will have 10 games against teams that finished 2011 with more than 8 wins:

Cincinnati: 9-7
Pittsburgh: 12-4
Baltimore: 12-4
New Orleans: 13-3
Atlanta: 10-6
Chicago: 8-8
Philadelphia: 8-8 (2 games)
New York: 9-7 (2 games)

At least one of these teams will stumble next season and not reach 8 wins. Regardless, Dallas will either have to improve drastically from last season, or steal some of the Giants’ luck to duplicate the 8-8 record the Cowboys posted in 2011.

As far as the Giants are concerned, fans that believe that luck did not play a MAJOR role in their second Super Bowl are probably from New York, or just started watching football this season. The cascade of events that needed to happen for the Giants to win the Super Bowl is mind boggling:

1. Austin needed to lose the ball in the lights or the Giants lose.
2. Green Bay could only lose to the Giants if Rodgers was not sharp.
3. San Francisco needed Alex Smith (yes, that Alex Smith) to play like Steve Young and beat the New Orleans Saints for New York to have a chance in the NFC Championship game. No way the Giants defeat the Saints in the Superdome.
4. The 49ers needed to drop two sure interceptions and have a punt take an awkward bounce and deflect off of an inexperienced return man to lose that game.
5. New England, a team that rarely (if ever) defeats itself with dumb plays, commits a 12-men on the field penalty on third down to extend a touchdown drive, has a player jump offsides to overturn a fumble, and Tom Terrific throws the most boneheaded intentional grounding in the history of the Super Bowl. Just as insurance, Wes Welker channels his inner Miles Austin and drops a sure game-cliching catch.

Welcome to today’s NFL, where average teams have a chance to win it all. Come to think of it, maybe the Cowboys really aren’t that far off (channeling my inner Jerry).

I don’t think they were lucky. It’s incumbent on Newman to make the int. He didn’t and Dallas lost. Dallas invents ways to lose. It has nothing to do with luck. If you take care of your own business and capitilize on the other teams mistakes you will most likely win. Dallas makes far too many mistakes. They are mediocre and their record says so.

I don’t buy Austin losing the ball in the lights. How come no other wr loses the ball in the lights ? Only a Dallas wr can lose the ball in the lights. Dallas doesn’t make clutch plays. The Giants do. I think Austin knew Tony was going to get grilled and he was trying to deflect the criticism.

1. Austin needed to lose the ball in the lights or the Giants lose.
2. Green Bay could only lose to the Giants if Rodgers was not sharp.
3. San Francisco needed Alex Smith (yes, that Alex Smith) to play like Steve Young and beat the New Orleans Saints for New York to have a chance in the NFC Championship game. No way the Giants defeat the Saints in the Superdome.
4. The 49ers needed to drop two sure interceptions and have a punt take an awkward bounce and deflect off of an inexperienced return man to lose that game.
5. New England, a team that rarely (if ever) defeats itself with dumb plays, commits a 12-men on the field penalty on third down to extend a touchdown drive, has a player jump offsides to overturn a fumble, and Tom Terrific throws the most boneheaded intentional grounding in the history of the Super Bowl. Just as insurance, Wes Welker channels his inner Miles Austin and drops a sure game-cliching catch.

All of the above was not luck for the Giants. Those were mistakes by the other team and the Gmen taking advantage. How come Dallas doesn’t take advantage ? They just don’t have the mental toughness to forge a head.

If the Giants weren’t good enough to win the Superbowl they wouldn’t have. Dallas isn’t good enough right now. They are missing the “it” factor.

But please don’t try to feed me the garbage that the Giants have some kind of blueprint to be a dynasty. This is a team that was about as average as could be until that last night of the reg. season.

There is no question that the football bounces funny. Yet there are Questions of the day

What factors are random by nature or "lucky’

Randomness should mean that they are equally likely to occur – for good or ill. They will tend to even out in the long run, but there may be short periods of unevenness. Flip a honest coin and it will be heads half of the time. Yet there are many times of heads several times in a row.

What teams have had “luck” interventions and how often in crucial times or games?

Conversely what factors are characteristics of good teams and should NOT be considered?

which is REALLY hard to beat.

You can play well enough to beat a good team; but to beat one that has most of the bounces go their way?

For those that say luck has nothing to do with it; the above mentioned examples just this year; and then of course the dropped pick that Samuels had just before the Helmet play.

And as regards the Helmet play:

How do you explain the fact that the player who made that catch never caught another pass in his career?

The bold font numerator in your formula is POINTS SCORED. One of the most obvious reasons the Cowboys have been so mediocre the past few years is because the offense has been consistently middle of the pack in scoring. Can we all agree that it is points that win games, not luck. And the Garrett lead version of the Cowboys offense has been middling in point production since he took over the offense. The Cowboys rank in points scored : 2008-18th, 2009-14th, 2010-7th, and 2011-15th for an average ranking of 14th in the NFL under Garrett’s leadership. That’s not bad luck my friend, that’s bona fide pattern. This problem is even more magnified in the 4th quarter in close games when the Cowboys just never seem to be able to close games. OCC, you prove this point in an article you wrote before last season http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/8/4/2344060/why-garrett-and-the-cowboys-must-win-the-fourth-quarter-in-2011.
I find it interesting that everyone seems to focus on the team’s defensive struggles, yet you point out that the offense finished 15th in scoring and defense 16th in points allowed. So can we all open our eyes to the fact that offense is equally responsible for the team’s mediocre performance. For a team that is loaded with offensive weapons, it speaks volumes that Garrett has consistently directed an underachieving offense with average point production. There is an underlying reason for the Cowboys performance that is much more basic and verifiable than an obscure excuse like "luck". It is the fact that Garrett’s offense has just been average in the area that matters most…SCORING!

The opposing kicker misses a 20 yard field goal. The opposition drops a wide open easy would be TD in the endzone. 6 opposing players have their hands on the ball before you recover the fumble. The opposing WR false starts. The opposing offense has too many men in the huddle or defense puts 12 men on the field. The opposing defense has so many players there to intercept the ball they run into each other. Basically the other team making unforced errors, the officials screwing up a call in your favor, and the “tipped pass that deflects to the other team and not to yours.”

While I think this sort of thing is valuable info, I’m still a little suspect when it comes to NFL point margins. Points aren’t a fungible thing like in basketball, and you get weird situations where the best thing to do is play for the win and risk the big loss — but not every coach has the guts to do that.

Add to that the fact that so many games are “close” and it’s plausible that a team would try to sacrifice overall quality for being extra good in close game situations.

In other words..it may be only part luck.

Didn’t the Colts outperform this metric by like 9 years running or some such before Manning went out?

..and haven’t the Patriots beaten this metric in nearly every year since Brady became starter?

I consider the 2007 version far luckier. They needed us to make multiple bad, abnormal mistakes to win that playoff game. Their offense was likely the poorest of any team thats won the superbowl in the last 8 years or so. They won 4 tight games in a row, and that culminated with the truly ludicrous once in a lifetime helmet catch.

This year, all it took was great qbs missing one easy pass. It isn’t lucky when they know if they’re given the chance, Eli will lead them to a score and they will win the game. All they needed was that opening. They are still lucky they got it, but the 2011 Giants will get credit from me.

It is obviously that the cowboys fans i mean some of you are bitter and have no idea on why you did not win. Us as fans all know the feeling and understand your heart ache. But to call the season Giants had as lucky is just ridiclous. So some facts for you to understand:

Injuries played a huge part of our issues this year. It seem we lost 3/4 of our starting defense by the first two weeks of the season. Along with a few offensive players. So instead of blaming that fact for the issue they had it was NEXT MAN UP enviroment amongst fans and the team itself.

Eli manning what else is there to be said without him we do not make the Super Bowl or win it. Hate him or love him he is a legit elite QB. Some amazing things he did last year including most clutch QB of all time. If you are a stats guy look it up. I know Romo had a good fourth quarter last year too. More on that later.

Last 9 games of the regular season our opponents record was a .715. WOW that is ridiclous schedule. So lets talk about the two games boys vs giants. we all know all teh rest do not matter because that is what won the division. First game JPP a monster you had no answer for all game and Eli played clutch as did Romo. Last game of the season we went up 24-0 at half in the “rain”. This game was never close even when you scored 14 on us in the third. The giants went to the prevent instead of keeping the pedal down. You can blame the defense but you need to blame your offense as much. Your line was not good that game.

So lets talk about LUCK. Was it luck in Green Bay was not a even more of a blow out. We had blown calls in that game alone by the refs that were obviously a call in our favor. Jennings fumble enough said. Guess what if the calls were right those miss passes do not even happen. We still talking about luck right. San Fran game was a defenseive battle. The only TWO plays that 49ers had against us was luck. Blown coverage. We still talking about luck correct. Stay with me on this. lets not talk about the fact they held tuck and jpp on just about every throwing play without a call thrown at them.

I can go on and on about luck in a game. It goes either way. I am one that does not believe in it. I believe in execution in a game. What you talking about is the Giants playing discpline football last part of the year. They executed when other did not. They did not turn the ball over. I am one that does not believe in rituals like wearing teh same jersey in same spot for all teh games. Nothing i do effects my team. So please hate all you want that the giants won the super bowl is fair enough but to call there accomplishment this year as a team as lucky just is low. I mean you have no intelligent arguement if you base your whole arguemtn on luck that is what OOC did. No disrespect to OCC at all. But it is a game of would have could have should have vs. did it. The Giants did it plain and simple.

They just don’t mean that much. Dallas had 22 net points, but if you take out the Bills game, they had -15 net points. Does beating up on a team that’s having a bad game really make you a better team over the course of a season? I don’t think so.

Did losing by 27 to the Eagles make us a worse team than if we lost by 2? No.

I also think it’s absolutely insane to call winning close games “lucky”. Luck is when things that aren’t in anybody’s control go your way. Throwing interceptions in the 4th quarter or letting a screen pass go for 52 yards in OT aren’t unlucky, they’re bad plays. A kicker being iced (whether it’s by his coach or the opposing coach) isn’t unlucky, they’re bad kicks. Things that are in someone’s direct control don’t come down to luck.

In baseball all teams in division have the same schedule, and have a similar schedule in league, as well as 162 games to decrease the impact of “luck”.

Giants had toughest schedule in the NFL this year by 2010 record. In a 16-game season, that has a great impact on scorIng differential. Same reason Tampa went from a playoff contender to basement team with roughly the same roster.

Having one franchise being stupid enough to trade away a lifetime of draft picks for a big name RB. THAT is luck.