There are a couple of schools of philosophy that determine how fans interpret a team’s performance on the field.
The first school is only concerned with the end result. The winner of the contest is always considered the better team, because hey, they won the contest, it’s only logical. This is a very black and white point of view, but it’s perfectly valid.
The second school is less rigid in its stance and believes that sometimes the best team doesn’t win. This philosophy judges a team’s performance on how the team plays, not whether or not they score more points. After all, 60 minutes of play in a football game is just an arbitrary number.
Is it actually a true indicator of a team’s ability if it has more points than its opponents at the 60-minute mark rather than the 45-minute mark?
The Cincinnati Bengals have started the season with a 1-1 record, but they’ve been outplayed consistently throughout each game. Even if they had won today, and just so happened to lead Denver after 60 minutes of play, I would still be writing the same thing. The 2011 Cincinnati Bengals are not a good team.
The analysts were saying it all off-season and preseason, but I didn’t want to believe it. After two games it’s painfully obvious that they were right all along, and I’ve outlined the reasons in the accompanying slideshow.
Agree, Disagree? Let me know in the comments section below!