PFP: Packers Win Division and "A Leading SB Contender"

[LUKE23]

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/vid ... Id=3554263

Pretty cool segment. Pro Football Prospectus runs 10,000 simulations of the season and then comes up with their win totals, predictions, etc.

Interestingly, PFP had the Packers at 11.4 wins on average in their simulation, while Vegas has our over/under wins at 8.19. In 2007, PFP actually beat Vegas by over 8%, and historically it appears that PFP has beaten Vegas in regards to win predictions.

Now, this doesn't mean a whole lot I guess, but fun to read and look at. I think that it all comes down to how much people rate or overrate the loss of Favre given the rest of the roster.

http://vegaswatch.net/2008/07/pro-footb ... 8-nfl.html

Here's a link showing the teams they differed on the most (Packers, Eagles, Bucs, Cowboys).

[ReasonablySober]

Last year the PFP predicted the Packers to take a big step forward and the Bears to take a huge step back.

[LUKE23]

Anyone have a link of their record predictions for 2007? And further back if possible? I was trying to find it, wasn't having much luck.

[bucks59]

Anyone have a link of their record predictions for 2007? And further back if possible? I was trying to find it, wasn't having much luck.

Here is analysis for the 2006 projections.
http://footballpredictionnetwork.blogsp ... tball.html

More stuff on the 2008 projections and it has projections for 2006 as well
http://vegaswatch.net/2008/07/pro-footb ... 8-nfl.html

Video for the 2007 projections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKhpWFw4scM

[TheGhostDog]

You can see the same yearly interview from 2007 here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKhpWFw4scM

In retrospect, they got Randy Moss very wrong, unless you consider his forgettable postseason (7 catches, 94 yards, 13 yard average total in 3 postseason games).

They said Adrian Peterson had superstar potential (correct) but that Marshawn Lynch might put up better rookie numbers (incorrect, although Lynch did manage 1300 total yards and 7 TDs).

They absolutely nailed Larry Johnson, saying he'd be injured and under 4 yards per carry (158 carries, 559 yards, 3.5 average).

Of the three teams they discussed as playoff favorites, they were high on everyone's favorite New England, but also deserve major kudos for predicting big playoff leap surprises for the Jaguars (11 wins) and Packers (13-3).

[LUKE23]

Thanks. They actually had GB contending last year as well. Picked them as the third SB favorite team after Patriots and Jaguars.

[Mags FTW]

Yeah. I started the 2007 thread with PFP's prediction of GB winning the division and being one of the 2 "breakout" teams along with JAX. They were right on both accounts. PFP usually knows what they are talking about. They keep records of some of the craziest stats you could think of.

This prediction of theirs is great news.

[rilamann]

Good to hear and I obviously agree as I have the Packers going 11-5 maybe even 12-4 baring major injury to key players.

My big thing is that I just dont see how the Packers go from 13-3 last year and on the brink of the super bowl to 6-10 or 7-9 simply because you replace Favre with Rodgers.I might buy 7-9 if Rodgers was a bum but hes not.Or maybe i'd buy it if the Packers had a crap team and it was obvious Favre put the team on his back last season but that wasnt the case.If anything Favre was carried on the back of Jennings,Driver,Jones,Lee and the great coaching of MM,not to mention Our defense as well.

I think the mistake people are making is that they think Rodgers has to be Favre and that because he isnt Favre the Packers are going to drop from 13-3 to 6-10.To me thats laughable.

Im not saying Rodgers will ever be as good as Favre but the key that a lot of people dont seem to understand ecspecially national (ESPN) is that Rodgers doesnt have to be Favre for the Packers to have success.

All Aaron Rodgers has to is be Aaron Rodgers and the Packers will be fine.Rodgers is a solid QB in his own right,just because the back of his jersey doesnt read ''Favre'' doesnt mean the guy cant have success and lead the Packers to a solid season.

Thats why I dont get how people figure the Packers go from 13-3 to 6-10 just because you replace Favre with Rodgers.

And the Vikings? Sure they got some nice pieces are have a decent team and have a shot to make the playoffs but I dont see how people figure they are going to beat the Packers out for the NFC North crown.

The Packers go from 13-3 to 6-10 because you replace Favre with Rodgers yet the same Vikes the Packers beat 34-0 last season are the favorite and they dont even have a QB? How does that work.

The same Vikings team in week 16 last year that needed to beat the Redskins at home to contorl thier wild card destiny but got down in that game 25-0?

[El Duderino]

My big thing is that I just dont see how the Packers go from 13-3 last year and on the brink of the super bowl to 6-10 or 7-9 simply because you replace Favre with Rodgers

I don't see us dropping that far either, but i do think many believe that a key reason we went 13-3 last year was lots of luck in the health department. For the most part, GB didn't lose any vital players to a significant injury and the odds are against repeating that this year. Jolly is the only good player i can think of who missed a large chunk of games.

Plus, given Rodgers had injuries in very limited action, i think people out there question if Aaron can stay healthy for 15 or 16 games. With no proven backup, Rodgers missing 3 or more games could be a disaster.

[Mags FTW]

PFP did a podcast with Bill Simmons. Haven't listened yet, so I can't give highlights.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/simmons/index

[Mags FTW]

33:00 mark. PFP author predicts the Pack to make the SB.

[ReasonablySober]

"That team has so much talent up and down the roster, that unless Rodgers is just really bad, they'll be really good."

[Kerb Hohl]

"That team has so much talent up and down the roster, that unless Rodgers is just really bad, they'll be really good."

Fire Thompson.