Exactly. The 13.5 point spread was a little high. Then again, AZ lost to the Rams and should have lost to the Dolphins, so I think they are a mystery too. You cant even use divisional records now. The Dolphins will play the Jets 2x before they play the Bills or the Pats once. Thats ridiculous. Again, its all perspective. Pats are 3-3 and "on the decline" and the Jets/Bills/Dolphins are making playoff predictions already.
And some perspectives are stupid, idiotic, retarded and can only come from Florida. Everyone we think is good, IS good. The problem is there are a LOT of good fucking teams, so people are going to lose some games. Especially with the travel schedules, shortened weeks (Thursday games), longer weeks (think about Thurday games + bye weeks). It has an impact. This shit isn't Madden where every game people are starting 100%. The Texans are good, the Patriots are good, the Packers are good, the 49ers are good and the Bears are good. Football is still has some random factors, more than any other sport, and all of them are going to shake out and end up affecting the game. All of the teams we think are good will end up in the playoffs barring devastating injuries. The real question is what teams we think are bad, aren't bad. Vikings, Seahawks, Dolphins...those are the guys where the conversation needs to focus.
First of all, the Cardinals are no where near as good as their 4-2 record would indicate. They have a decent enough defense to keep them in games, but it is only a matter of time before Kevin Kolb and John Skelton remember who they are and that team comes crashing down to earth. 0-2 in their last two games is a start, but even with a 4-0 start, I will be shocked if they end the season over .500. Just too many holes (i.e. arguably the worst O-line in football, incredibly inconsistent QBs, no running game at all to speak of) for that defense to overcome. Second of all, I maintain the Patriots end the season 10-6 or 9-7, and will make the playoffs, but will not make the AFC title game. I also agree with whomever said that every single NFC division winner this year could beat ANY of the AFC playoff teams, with the potential exception of the Texans. The AFC is just the weaker conference, right now, which is a complete turn around from about 5 years ago. Finally, I think a lot of the early surprise teams that got off to a good start (Vikings, Cardinals) will start coming back down, while some of the teams that got off to slow starts (Green Bay) will start to pick it back up. It is called "Regression to the mean," and it simply means that players and teams going through hot and cold streaks will eventually even out. Take Christian Ponder. 0 picks through his first four games, which is really good for a guy in his 2nd year and who is considered a fairly average talent. His last two games? 4 interceptions. He'll regress a bit, because he can't really keep up that fantastic pace he was at. The Cardinals and Vikings can't keep up the pace they were going at, and they'll slip backwards. Sadly, I think the same thing may happen to the Bears.
The question I would ask, at least in regard to the Vikings, is which "mean" we're talking about that they're going to regress to. Ponder? Obviously he wasn't going to go through the whole season without throwing a pick, but I don't see any reason why putting a better season together than his rookie season would be considered an outlier - it's perfectly logical for a 2nd year QB to be better than he was as a rookie. As for the team as a whole? Well, last year their record in close games (a FG or less) was 2-9 - which was an outlier. In this case regression to the mean would mean they'd win more of those games, which (albiet a pretty small sample size so far) is what's happening so far this year as they're 1-1 in close games. Their point differential indicates their record should be 3.8-2.2, which is pretty much 4-2, so their record expectation is in line with their performance thus far. I've watched every Vikings game this year and personally there's nothing I see to indicate to me that they're playing over their heads. I think they're going to end up somewhere around 9-7ish because the last six games of the year are very tough. Speaking of the Bears, the only obvious regression is that they're not going to get defensive scores every game. However, even if you factor out all the defensive scores the Bears sill have an expected win-loss record of 3.5-1.5, which again is pretty much inline with their actual record. I haven't watched most of the Bears' games, however, so is there something else you see that makes you think the Bears can't continue winning at a 70% rate? (their expected win rate based on points differential factoring out the defensive scores)
The Seahawks defense is legitimate. The only way Seattle finishes less than .500 is injury or Wilson being so ineffective that I begin pining for Tarvaris Jackson. Luckily for me, Matt Flynn is nothing if not a good backup. Seattle's defense only has one "starter" over the age of 30, and it's their nickel CB. I have every confidence that Seattle has a good chance at 8-0 at home this year. The rest of teams Seattle play at home are, in order, Vikings, Jets, Cards, 49ers and Rams. Again, depending on injury, those are all winnable games. On one hand, I don't want to put a lot of stock in the game tonight because it's a short week, on the road, after an emotional win, against a team that was embarrassed last week and is probably going to play angry. But if Seattle wins...I don't even want to dare to dream.
I think a lot of people would believe more in the vikings if they had watched the 49ers game. They straight up outplayed them, nothing fluky about it. If the packers pick it up I really think the NFC north will be the toughest division in football this year. I'm curious, how did you calculate your expected wins off point differential? It seems like a weird way to judge teams, especially considering the bears have a higher positive point differential than the vikings after discarding defensive TDs, but still a lower expected number of wins than the vikings. Besides, we should assume their defense will score at least occasionally. D26- You are really hard on your team. They will have a much tougher schedule during the second half, but they are playing out of their minds, and that offense isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Every year there tends to be a few surprise teams that come crashing down to Earth. Personally, I'd say the rams, jets, bills, and dolphins are all going to finish well below .500. I can also see Seattle sliding. Sorry Jimmy, QB play is not the only possible thing that could wrong in Seattle. 8-0 at home? I'll take that bet any day. I mean, they already lost once there, so I win automatically, right?
What standings are you looking at? The ones listed on nfl.com or the bulletin board in your bedroom with your tear stained Packers pennant attached to it? A win is a win is a win. Just ask any Steelers fan after Super Bowl XL. Shitty calls are a part of the game. I don't know what else I can say to that other than to get over it and hope your team wins.
I used the Pythagorean Expectation formula to calculate expected win-loss records. The reason in my post I gave the Bears a lower expected number of wins is in my math I factored out the points they got from defensive touchdowns. D26 was talking about teams - mentioning the Bears specifically - regressing to the mean; in the Bears' case the biggest outlier they have is the five defensive touchdowns they scored. So I calculated what their expected wins would be even if the Bears didn't score any of those touchdowns to show D26 that they're still playing well enough to put up a 11-5 record by the end of the year. I'd say an 11-5 record is hardly "regressing to the mean" when talking about the Bears, unless he was expecting something like a 13-3 or 14-2 record to begin with.
One of the things you have to take into account with the Bears is their opponents. They've beaten the teams they are supposed to beat by a lot. Jacksonville would get beat by most high school teams this year, and the Colts and St. Louis aren't exactly teams to be feared. Looking ahead, this is how I see their season going: Detroit - W (5-1) Carolina - W (6-1) At Tennessee - W (7-1) this is where "Bears Superbowl OMG!" reaches epic proportions Houston - L (7-2) At San Francisco - L (7-3) (Oh my god! What is happening! The Bears are DOOOOOOOOMED!) Minnesota - W (8-3) Seattle - L (8-4) At Minnesota - L (8-5) Green Bay - L (8-6) (Ahh! The Bears are crapping away their season! Oh Noes!) At Arizona - W (9-6) (at this point, they need a win next week to make the playoffs in the wild card spot, in a tough NFC) At Detroit - ??? I just predict the Bears falter against tougher teams, and watching the roller coaster in Chicago and the media will be quite funny.
So you chalk them up losing at home in a primetime game to a Texans team that just got exposed and also hasnt beaten anyone? At SF I can see. But Seattle? You realize that game is in Chicago right? And Minnesota? Even in Minnesota I think the Bears are a better team. You act like the Bears are sneaking by teams. There is a big difference between "The Bears are going 15-1 Super Bowl bound!" and "This team hasn't played anyone, I'll be surprised if they make the playoffs." This is likely an 12-4/11-5 team. If the offense catches stride, it could be 13-3 with a loss at SF and a slip up somewhere else. I'm not writing off that GB game in Chicago. With the worst game Cutler has played in 3 years and an OL failure for the ages, the Bears were still in that game most of the way. Are you one of those Chicago sports fans who sets themselves up for failure so you don't get annoyed when it happens? Jeez.
Am I the only one who thinks Harbaugh had the Seahawks +7.5 after declining the safety? Honestly, what logical reason could there have been for not taking the safety? Even with an onside kick and recovery, it would have given them, what, 45 seconds to score twice? (This is a serious question, I'm legitimately curious)
The actual question is, what would the logical reason be for taking the safety? There is literally no downside to declining it. Ball is turned over, they can kneel on it and end the game. The W is the only thing that matters. Why would you extend the game one second longer than it needed to go? Why would you put your guys on the field to jump into a scrum and maybe get hurt? Why would you even chance giving the other team another possession? Imagine the fallout if something went wrong - a turnover, an injury. Same reason why a lot of smart running backs and receivers sit down on the 1 yard line during a big play at the end of the game. If you can run the time off the clock, you do it.
^ is the right, but longer answer. The short answer is that Jim doesn't give a fuck about gambling lines. Yeah D26, I'm getting a little worred about your football views on your own team, is your baby somehow a Packers fan? Also pretty sure you're using the "regression to the mean" concept on the wrong things. Regression mostly applies to the more "random" aspects such as turnovers (INTs, Fumbles, Fumble Recoveries) and FG. Not yardage, TDs, Points etc. Especially not total wins. You have to look at what the actual outlier is and what actually has been consistent.
You're giving my Vikings a split against the bears? I think we lose both to you, as well as losing to GB in the week in the middle. The vikings are going to be a 9-7 team this year, with luck. 8-8 is more likely.
I'm more realistic about my team. I fully realize the Bears are a very flawed team, and even though it has been a bit, the Green Bay game exposed them. Their offensive line is terrible, and any team with a dominant defensive line can really get at Cutler. Once they get at Cutler, they just have to rattle him enough for him to make bad decisions and throw the ball away. The games I said they'd lose are the games against tougher defenses that can get to Cutler, beat him up, and cause him to make bad decisions, which may result in defensive scores. I hope they are as good as 13-3, but I just don't see it happening with that offensive line. They won't continue to score a lot on defense, either, which goes back to me "regression to the mean" theory.
No idea why Jwags is just putting trollbait out there. Anyway, looking forward to this weekend. This 3-3 thing doesn't look sexy on the Patriots. From a pure football fan standpoint, I'm intrigued by the "Kitchen Sink Offense" that the Jets will be running. God I just want to see the Patriots run a balanced offense. When they do, its a guaranteed win. When they don't, its live by the pass, die by the pass.