Old School guys like Hob who go all Old School explaining the how the 2009 Bengals win through some Old School formula of grit, toughness, chemistry, ball control, eye discipline and Old Schooliness appear to be right.
The Bengals sit at 9-3, in full control of the AFC North, a division they have swept even though it contains the two teams from last year's AFC Championship game. They have high quality wins against good opponents on the road including Green Bay, Baltimore, & Pittsburgh where if you watched the game you could tell the Bengals appeared to be the superior team (perhaps only slightly) and the outcome was fair.
Yet the those purveyors of more intelligent NFL statistics find the 2009 version of the Bengals about as compelling this year as the Jets or Niners and less so than the Ravens and Steelers, against whom we are 4-0.
From Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats via his New York Times 5th Down Blog (Doc also points this out in TML, likely much earlier than I did):
The luckiest teams this season have been the Vikings, the Colts, the Bengals and the Saints. Usually when teams have extremely good records, they are both good and lucky. The reason is simple: It’s extremely rare for a team to have a good record and at the same time be unlucky.
And check out Football Outsiders DVOA ranking, the stat they use to measure which teams are the strongest and weakest each year (since folks have asked: DVOA basically measures how a team performs compared to the NFL average on every play, taking into account things like down, distance, score, time and quality of opponent). The Bengals sit right in the middle of the pack at 15th.
Basically, the implication is that the either the Bengals a)have had more than their fair share of luck this year or b)these stats just can't quantify something (like the ability of Brian Leonard to intimidate our opponents?).
So what do you think? What's going on with this 2009 season, a whole lotta luck or something else?
My take: a little bit of net good luck (would be much more if not for the Denver game) plus scraping out bare bones wins against teams we are actually far better than (Cleveland twice, Detroit) making us statistically unappealing.
Remember those 1994 Knicks coached by Pat Riley with guys like Charles Oakley who just beat the crap out of you and won ugly? I think we have lots in common with them. An ability to make opponents play ugly like you is not luck and that is what we do. But we will look statistically bad anyway.
At least, that's what I hope. Cause if it's a lot of luck that will not continue.
I think we'll find out the next two weeks.
Posted by: FeedMikeBrownToAquaBengal | December 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
"At least, that's what I hope. Cause if it's a lot of luck that will not continue."
Yeah, especially since the two teams luckier than the Bengals they'll see either next week (the Vikings) or, ideally, in the playoffs (the Colts). Also, in listening to Sunday's post game show on WLW, the thing that kept coming up was that this offense was built to win games in cold weather. How does that help them in the Metrodome, in San Diego, or, in the playoffs, in the Lucas Oil Dome (don't kid yourself - the roof will be closed for that game)?
Posted by: Wyatt | December 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I don't understand why you can't build an offense to win games in any kind of weather. The 1988 Bengals led the league in running but weren't too shabby throwing the ball.
If you sub out JP Foschi for Antonio Gonzalez this offense leads the league or is pretty close, both running and passing.
Posted by: FeedMikeBrownToAquaBengal | December 10, 2009 at 01:45 PM
Yeah - my problem with this is that it seems by definition any team with an extreme record, 0-3 wins or losses over a year, will be defined as very lucky because even really good statistical teams are only projected to win like 75% of their games (12 wins).
Hence the Saints, Vikings and Colts are the "luckiest" teams in the NFL according to these measures. Well, okay, but they're also easily 3 of the 5 best teams and would be in first place in their divisions even without "luck". Have you ever seen an average team go 13-3 or 14-2 or 3-13? Nope. I don't think it's useful to call, say, the 1998 Broncos a lucky team with 14 wins.
I think they need a slightly more nuanced way to quantify luck. It appears to be more useful for middle of the pack teams where luck can really change a season.
Posted by: Sleeping With Bieniemy | December 10, 2009 at 02:01 PM
If you look at the week 12 DVOA article (just change 13 to 12 in the url) you'll actually find an explanation of why the Bengals make DVOA cry.
Posted by: David | December 11, 2009 at 08:33 PM
I really don't know if this year is for real, yet. Great record, really good defense and great running attack. It is just so unCincinnati like that I think many fans are still skeptical and waiting. There's no doubt now that we will make the playoffs. It is just a question of how far we go. I think the regular season tests that remain pale in comparison to the playoffs. Anything less than a spot in the AFC title game is disappointing.
Thank you WDR for asking what the fans think!
Posted by: Sam Stancheck | December 13, 2009 at 08:05 AM