Pro Football Prospectus-Projects GB to Win the NFC North

Mags FTW · Post #1 » by **Mags FTW** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:21 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/pla ... d=2977883#

Finally made it to the end of Bill Simmons' podcast from last week. It was 52 minutes long and of course in the 50th minute Simmons asks PFP editor Aaron Schatz to pick his "sleeper" teams. Schatz names the Pack and JAX, quote "no question about it".

Pretty informative overall, but those last 2 minutes will make you smile.

Ayt · Post #2 » by **Ayt** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:14 am

Wow. I think the Bears are going to dominate the entire NFC.

Post #3 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:11 pm

As much of a homer that I am there is no way the Pack can be considered a contender for the division this year. I like the direction we're heading, especially on defense, but we're not there yet.

But let's remember, this is the time of year dozens of "experts" will be making their predictions. And a lot of them make wild picks on the off chance they will be right and will stand out.

Mags FTW · Post #4 » by **Mags FTW** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:32 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:But let's remember, this is the time of year dozens of "experts" will be making their predictions. And a lot of them make wild picks on the off chance they will be right and will stand out.

His (the books') projection is entirely stat driven, so it's not a case of some guy pulling a team out of his butt just so he can look like a genius at the end of the year. If you have time, listen to the whole podcast.

Post #5 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:44 pm

Mike Clements on WSSP had an interesting comment.....he said that the offense has looked awful in camp, yet has played ok in the two games. He was almost wondering if the defense wasn't so damn good it was making the offense look bad in practice.....

I realize that's wishful homer thinking, but this team's defense has something major going for it. I can't remember two straight exhibition games were the first team D-line just manhandled the other team like we've seen the last two weeks.

TheGhostDog · Post #6 » by **TheGhostDog** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:12 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:I can't remember two straight exhibition games were the first team D-line just manhandled the other team like we've seen the last two weeks.

It's the first time I've looked forward to watching the Packer defense take the field since those great mid-90s days when Sean Jones and Reggie White raced each other to the QB every snap.

Post #7 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:57 pm

What stats is he using? Last years? Then we can't be the favorite. Over the last few seasons? We can't be the favorite. Preseason? Not very meaningful.

I'll listen when I have the time, I'm just curious what stats could be used to predict we win the division.

Post #8 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:03 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:Mike Clements on WSSP had an interesting comment.....he said that the offense has looked awful in camp, yet has played ok in the two games. He was almost wondering if the defense wasn't so damn good it was making the offense look bad in practice.....

I realize that's wishful homer thinking, but this team's defense has something major going for it. I can't remember two straight exhibition games were the first team D-line just manhandled the other team like we've seen the last two weeks.

I tend to agree with this. Going up against our defense in practice can do nothing but help our offense.

ssssssnake · Post #9 » by **ssssssnake** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:44 pm

After the first game in 2005, I predicted the Packers would have a hard time winning 6 games when everyone was thinkin they would turn it around. I just saw no talent. AFter last preseason, I thought they were a 6-10 team. This year, I think they are really good. I think they have a very good chance to make the playoffs and I would no be suprised if they win the division. I think the Packers are one of the top 8 teams in the NFC and they have a chance to be as good as the top team in our conference if a few things shake out.

Post #10 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:51 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:What stats is he using? Last years? .

I didn't listen to the interview, but I know that certain guys weigh very heavily in their team and individual player predictions what happened the final eight games of a year.

Last year the Packers won many games down the stretch and gave up very few points. Put that into an objective model and it will predict great success.

We all know that those last victories were questionable......but it doesn't show in the stats.....

Post #11 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:57 pm

Yeah, our last 4 wins were against 3 bad teams and a team resting it's guys. We played well I guess, but nothing to make me think we are the favorites this year. The other 4 games in the second half were 3 losses and a win over the Queens.

Mags FTW · Post #12 » by **Mags FTW** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:09 pm

lol. Stop questioning the stats MD.

They chart every play of every game and take a bunch of different variables into consideratioin.

You'll just have to listen to the podcast.

Post #13 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:18 pm

I don't think many of us are thinking superbowl or anything crazy like that.....just a team that we think looks to be competitive and might win 10 games if they stay healthy. And compared to the last few seasons, that would be major progress, hence the optimism.

I also look at the current Bears team and I really don't get scared. That team is not at all like those top tier 49'er and Cowboy teams we had to compete against in the early to mid 1990's. I could see the Bears going 7-9 just as easily as I could see them hitting 13-3. We might be able to hang with them or just under them this season.

Ayt · Post #14 » by **Ayt** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:27 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:I don't think many of us are thinking superbowl or anything crazy like that.....just a team that we think looks to be competitive and might win 10 games if they stay healthy. And compared to the last few seasons, that would be major progress, hence the optimism.

I also look at the current Bears team and I really don't get scared. That team is not at all like those top tier 49'er and Cowboy teams we had to compete against in the early to mid 1990's. I could see the Bears going 7-9 just as easily as I could see them hitting 13-3. We might be able to hang with them or just under them this season.

They should scare the hell out of everyone in the NFC. A loaded and young D and an offense that should definitely be improved. They have so much speed on offense with Hester being moved to WR, Bradley being fully back from his knee injury as a rookie, and the addition of a very fast TE in Olsen. Benson is an upgrade over Jones and Grossman completed what was essentially his first season as a starting QB.

I put several hundred on the over for wins on the season last week. Its was at 10. I expect them to win 13.

Ill-yasova · Post #15 » by **Ill-yasova** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:22 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:Yeah, our last 4 wins were against 3 bad teams and a team resting it's guys. We played well I guess, but nothing to make me think we are the favorites this year. The other 4 games in the second half were 3 losses and a win over the Queens.

If you want to be picky about it, we also gave away two games last season to the rams and the saints too.

Post #16 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:25 pm

Ayt wrote:-=I put several hundred on the over for wins on the season last week. Its was at 10. I expect them to win 13.

The over is only 10 for the Bears? That's a decent bet on your part IMO....but the fact the over is at 10 for a superbowl team tells you somebody has their doubts, whether it's Vegas or the money.

What do teams that appeared in the SuperBowl come back at for wins on the over/under the next year? I have no clue. 10 seems low.

So if the Bears win 11, your bet pays off?

Ill-yasova · Post #17 » by **Ill-yasova** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:41 pm

They will be talking about the football prospectus thing on 1070 am Madison after commercial break. WTSO madison if you wanna google it and stream the audio.

xTitan · Post #18 » by **xTitan** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:07 pm

Ayt wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

They should scare the hell out of everyone in the NFC. A loaded and young D and an offense that should definitely be improved. They have so much speed on offense with Hester being moved to WR, Bradley being fully back from his knee injury as a rookie, and the addition of a very fast TE in Olsen. Benson is an upgrade over Jones and Grossman completed what was essentially his first season as a starting QB.

I put several hundred on the over for wins on the season last week. Its was at 10. I expect them to win 13.

first off Hester and Bradley have to prove that they can consistantly catch the ball...something neither could do in college...Benson has alot of Ron Dayne in him, his college numbers were somewhat tainted because of a great offensive line and a pretty good QB, plus I do not see Benson staying healthy for a complete season, he is soft. Olsen will do a good job receiving but is absolutely BRUTAL as a blocker...so his snaps will be somewhat limited and he is just a rookie.....you forgot to mention the great Rex Grossman, he is and will be a liability.....

Ayt · Post #19 » by **Ayt** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:33 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

The over is only 10 for the Bears? That's a decent bet on your part IMO....but the fact the over is at 10 for a superbowl team tells you somebody has their doubts, whether it's Vegas or the money.

What do teams that appeared in the SuperBowl come back at for wins on the over/under the next year? I have no clue. 10 seems low.

So if the Bears win 11, your bet pays off?

If they win 11 or more, I get my bet matched. If they win 10, I push and get my money back. 9 or less and I lose. Seemed like a no-brainer to be honest.

Indy is 10.5. NE is 11.5. SD 10.5.

The NFC seems really weak to me and the Bears schedule isn't as tough as I was thinking it was.

Ayt · Post #20 » by **Ayt** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:46 pm

xTitan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

first off Hester and Bradley have to prove that they can consistantly catch the ball...something neither could do in college...Benson has alot of Ron Dayne in him, his college numbers were somewhat tainted because of a great offensive line and a pretty good QB, plus I do not see Benson staying healthy for a complete season, he is soft. Olsen will do a good job receiving but is absolutely BRUTAL as a blocker...so his snaps will be somewhat limited and he is just a rookie.....you forgot to mention the great Rex Grossman, he is and will be a liability.....

I just see it much differently. I think Grossman will play much better in his second year as a full time starter. At times he looked brilliant; other games he looked like a 3rd stringer. So it goes with young QB's.

I'm a big fan of Benson. He reminds me a lot of a young Ahman Green the way he can cut on a dime without losing any speed and plow through DB's like they aren't even there. He could easily have a 1400+ yard season. Thomas Jones was a pansy and it was smart to part ways with him.

Like I said earlier, I think the Bears will own the NFC just like NE will own the AFC. Everyone knows the Bears D is great, but they forget or don't realize they tied for 2nd in the NFL in points scored last year with Indy and that was with the "liability" Rex Grossman in his first year as a fulltime starter. Even if Bradley, Hester, and Olsen are bit players on offense, it still adds dimensions they didn't have last year.