Does anyone notice how analysts refuse to acknowledge

[fallforward3y+]

how teams match up with the specific team they are playing, as well as home field advantage? It occurred to me in the Saints Rams predictions. No mention of how well the Rams have played the Saints, or the difference in NO on the road versus home.

It just seems that way to me, and I don't know why. It's as if they don't want to admit HFA actually plays a role in games, or that certain teams play certain teams well. Some players have an edge on certain players, or teams versus certain teams that seems to just be based on their specific match up. You'll see analysts never acknowledge it and act like it doesn't matter, and yet it usually plays out.

They went with the popular narrative about NO being a better team, no surprise the Rams soundly beat them.

I dunno, am I the only one who notices this. I wonder why that is.

[EddieMac]

I listened to a segment where they talked about how well the Rams play them. It was quite in depth too and they were split on who would win.

They always talk about how well NE plays against Manning

They played up how Manning has never lost to KC.

[Mr Bojangles]

how teams match up with the specific team they are playing, as well as home field advantage? It occurred to me in the Saints Rams predictions. No mention of how well the Rams have played the Saints, or the difference in NO on the road versus home.

It just seems that way to me, and I don't know why. It's as if they don't want to admit HFA actually plays a role in games, or that certain teams play certain teams well. Some players have an edge on certain players, or teams versus certain teams that seems to just be based on their specific match up. You'll see analysts never acknowledge it and act like it doesn't matter, and yet it usually plays out.

They went with the popular narrative about NO being a better team, no surprise the Rams soundly beat them.

I dunno, am I the only one who notices this. I wonder why that is.

You are assuming that they are astute enough to even consider such things, perhaps.

Oh, and yes, I have noticed that certain teams present inexplicable problems for other teams....for example, the Colts seemed to have a difficult time with Chargers, 5-6 years ago. The Patriots, for years, couldn't beat Miami, in Miami. That reared it's ugly head again this past week. But I recall the late season matchup with Dolphins in Miami in 2001, with a PO spot on the line for NE...and, for what seemed like the first time in ages, the Pats beat them.

[fallforward3y+]

I listened to a segment where they talked about how well the Rams play them. It was quite in depth too and they were split on who would win.

They always talk about how well NE plays against Manning

They played up how Manning has never lost to KC.

Really? What was the segment? In my personal experience I've just never heard it, maybe I need to find a new program. They rarely, if ever even mention the history of teams playing each other on shows. Commentators during games will say it at times, but it doesn't seem like any analysts do during the week.

I do remember one time though, I forget his name but one analyst completely punked Jamie Dukes. He picked BAL over CIN back in the days when they struggled with Cincy, and was talking about how experienced Ray Lewis was, how they couldn't fool him and couldn't produce versus BAL, then that analyst eluded to how they had consistently done it in the past, despite Ray's experience. Bengals won the game.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should just completely ignore everything else, or act like the team on the losing side of the series has no chance. Things do change, and during the series the losing side usually gets at least 1 or 2 wins. However, it should at least be acknowledged and factored into the situation, and if you think it will change, say why it's different now.

[fallforward3y+]

You are assuming that they are astute enough to even consider such things, perhaps.

Oh, and yes, I have noticed that certain teams present inexplicable problems for other teams....for example, the Colts seemed to have a difficult time with Chargers, 5-6 years ago. The Patriots, for years, couldn't beat Miami, in Miami. That reared it's ugly head again this past week. But I recall the late season matchup with Dolphins in Miami in 2001, with a PO spot on the line for NE...and, for what seemed like the first time in ages, the Pats beat them.

Well, if guys who get paid big bucks to analyze the game don't even realize or consider things that fans figure out, we perhaps need to re-evaluate the definition of 'expert'. Many fans are well informed, but ex-players should really have some insight to that, especially if they get paid big bucks to look deep into it. It's even worse when they don't acknowledge the most well known ones, like Colts-Chargers back in the day. There certainly are a lot of them. It happens a lot with divisional match ups, familiarity and everything.

Redskins-Saints is a non-divisional one I've noticed, that is less talked about. Since the Brees era NO really has issues with WAS, it's one I have yet to figure out. It's not anything extravagant, just 3-1 since 2006, but the way the games play out is not consistent with the caliber of the teams, especially how well Brees plays, and the Saints passing game.
In 2006, the Skins had one of the worst defenses in the league, and the Saints have always had a top pass attack since 06, yet 16-10 win IN NEW ORLEANS for WAS. In 2009, the Saints were 13-3, and a dominant team with a monster offense, Redskins had a bad defense and were 4-12. It took miracles that almost never happen for NO to beat WAS in OT, and it should have been a blow out based on the caliber of the teams both times. In 08 I could see it, Saints having no run game and defense being beaten by a good Skins defense and run game, but that's about it.

It's one of the things I love about the game, helps keep it more interesting. Players matching up well with a specific player well as well.

[EddieMac]

Really? What was the segment? In my personal experience I've just never heard it, maybe I need to find a new program. They rarely, if ever even mention the history of teams playing each other on shows. Commentators during games will say it at times, but it doesn't seem like any analysts do during the week.

I do remember one time though, I forget his name but one analyst completely punked Jamie Dukes. He picked BAL over CIN back in the days when they struggled with Cincy, and was talking about how experienced Ray Lewis was, how they couldn't fool him and couldn't produce versus BAL, then that analyst eluded to how they had consistently done it in the past, despite Ray's experience. Bengals won the game.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should just completely ignore everything else, or act like the team on the losing side of the series has no chance. Things do change, and during the series the losing side usually gets at least 1 or 2 wins. However, it should at least be acknowledged and factored into the situation, and if you think it will change, say why it's different now.

It was on moving the chains on NFL radio. Pat Kirwan i believe.

[AznBroncoFan]

Or how about the tv guys won't say Clemens have played better than the Sam Bustford.