Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

[CaptainKickass]

I like the talent on this years team. They've narrowly lost to 2 worthy opponents on the road in a fashion that I can only describe as "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory". That is to say that during the game they put themselves in position to win, (ie: take the lead, maintain the lead or come back from behind) but instead - for whatever reasons - they reached deep down and snatched defeat.

My question is this:

What happens historically and/or statistically to other NFL teams who have shown they have the talent to be a top contender, but go through a period of time where the games just don't turn into a "W" for a while.

A recent example off the top of my head might be the Chargers. They had top talent for many years, but struggled.

How many teams turn it around vs tank? How long does it take? How long do they "hang around" in the middle?

I'm looking for obscure analysis because none of this seems readily available and may require somewhat of a football historian to shed light on.

[cheesner]

How many teams turn it around vs tank? 7
How long does it take? 1 month - 5 years
How long do they "hang around" in the middle? 4.2 years


I only do answers. Not data. I maybe was inspired by your tagline.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I listen to a lot of Saints games. A year or two ago (I think), the Saints were expected to be really good, but they started out with a string of consecutive losses. Many of those losses could have been victories if the ball had bounced differently. They never recovered and got a high draft choice out of it.

[Upnorth]

Reading your post reminded me of the 07 and 11 giants. Play below there level till it matters then turn it on. I may be projecting my hopes here...

[George Cumby]

I listen to a lot of Saints games. A year or two ago (I think), the Saints were expected to be really good, but they started out with a string of consecutive losses. Many of those losses could have been victories if the ball had bounced differently. They never recovered and got a high draft choice out of it.

This is my concern that these close losses are going to damage or influence the teams psyche in some way. I hope North is right and the team warmsup as the season progresses.

[swede]

This is my concern that these close losses are going to damage or influence the teams psyche in some way. I hope North is right and the team warmsup as the season progresses.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Soon you will witness the power of this fully armed and operational offense.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcdyp5CDMm1qbgffu.jpg

[pbmax]

Force lightning might be an effective way to get EDS to move faster on the reach block.


Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Soon you will witness the power of this fully armed and operational offense.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcdyp5CDMm1qbgffu.jpg

[George Cumby]

It's a trap!

[Jimx29]

Reading your post reminded me of the 07 and 11 giants. Play below there level till it matters then turn it on. I may be projecting my hopes here...

That was us also. I expect it again this year. Just to much talent to not excel

[mraynrand]

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Soon you will witness the power of this fully armed and operational offense.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcdyp5CDMm1qbgffu.jpg


Ummm....I'm not getting this. So, the Packer offense is like a partially built death star that will be destroyed in the Divisional round by a bunch of little teddy bears? Not a pretty prediction

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/ewokbear_zpsa4d2afcc.jpg (http://s453.photobucket.com/user/mraynrand/media/ewokbear_zpsa4d2afcc.jpg.html)

[CaptainKickass]

You all each give "obscure analysis" a different meaning. :razz:

When the team got down early, I wondered if this was the kind of team that could erase that kind of deficit and still give themselves a chance to win. They did that. Then they did more than that. I guess the only factual evidence for hope I'm gonna get is that while the Pack was down by 2 scores and missing 2 significant players, they were able shut the opponent out for long enough to put up about 30 unanswered points.

I've also been thinking that if the ground game is working, then maybe, just maybe, the team might be better off running a more clock eating style of offense.

[sharpe1027]

This is my concern that these close losses are going to damage or influence the teams psyche in some way. I hope North is right and the team warmsup as the season progresses.

Playing the queens, kitty kats and bares should help.

[Iron Mike]

I know how to fix the problem......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY2X-qOF6lA

[Pugger]

Our biggest problem in these loses is TURNOVERS on offense. Fumbles and interceptions - especially on the road - will kill ya every time. Fix that and that will fix a lot of what ails us. Getting healthy will help turn this season around too.

[Smidgeon]

Reading your post reminded me of the 07 and 11 giants. Play below there level till it matters then turn it on. I may be projecting my hopes here...

And the 10 Packers.

[run pMc]

Our biggest problem in these loses is TURNOVERS on offense. Fumbles and interceptions - especially on the road - will kill ya every time. Fix that and that will fix a lot of what ails us. Getting healthy will help turn this season around too.

+1

They went from 0-14 to 30-14 before AR and Franklin derailed things with TO's. If Rodgers doesn't throw that 2nd pick I'm convinced we'd be talking about the Packers being 2-1 into the bye. Woulda shoulda coulda. It's still early and a lot can happen. GB started off slow last year and clinched the division with a game to spare last year; they have the talent to do that again. Let's hope they do!

[Smidgeon]

GBPG seems to have a more fair view:
http://www.packersnews.com/article/20130926/PKR07/309260362/Mike-Vandermause-column-Rodgers-not-clutch-Evidence-says-otherwise

Specifically, they note that the "games decided by 4 points or less" is very arbitrary and moving that line to 7 points shows about a .500 winning rate.

[mraynrand]

GBPG seems to have a more fair view:
http://www.packersnews.com/article/20130926/PKR07/309260362/Mike-Vandermause-column-Rodgers-not-clutch-Evidence-says-otherwise

Specifically, they note that the "games decided by 4 points or less" is very arbitrary and moving that line to 7 points shows about a .500 winning rate.

football stats are totally dependent on context. I'm tired of this particular one.

[pbmax]

football stats are totally dependent on context. I'm tired of this
particular one.

The consistency of this stat makes me think there is something here. Also because it squares with my observation that the Packers are not a good come from behind late team. Not to say they cannot, as Rodgers did yeoman work in the second half of the Cardinals playoff game, for example. Its clear they can adjust and change their fortunes in the second half. So it cannot all fall to Rodgers

Neither he nor McCarthy are throw the book away and just play by the seat of your pants people. Remember that Favre was not a prolific come from behind guy early in his career partially because of the Holmgren Constraint, but also because a good team with a good D doesn't collect a lot of those wins. Montana always trailed Elway and Marino in this stat.

So part of explanation of this is that Rodgers and McCarthy don't tend to fall too deep into a hole they need to dig out of. The arbitrariness of 4 point games or 1-8 point deficits mean its a small subset without a lot of context explains some of the rest.

But I am not going to lie; I would prefer they have some of this ability in their back pocket.

[mraynrand]

^^^^ that sorta looks like context