Looking far ahead; (perhaps too far)

Wilford Brimley · Post #1 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:21 am

So I was looking at our schedule, and our place in the division, and it seems to me, at 5 wins, we would need about 5 more to get to 10, which is probably enough to win the division.

Assuming (I know I shouldn't but I can't help it) we beat Dallas and the 49ers (mainly because we are at home and they both suck) that puts us at 7 wins.

That means, we will have to win 3 of these remaining 7: @Min, @Atl, @Ne, @Det, NYG, CHI.

I don't think that is too tall of a task, as we probably will beat NYG and CHI, and win 1 of @Min, @Atl, @Det and @Ne.

The win against the Jets was really, really huge.

(Please don't blast me for looking so far ahead, I was just bored. :lol:

)

So, a simple breakdown:

Likely wins: DAL, SF (7 wins)

Probable wins: CHI (8 wins)

50-50 shot: @Det, NYG (Say we split, thats 1 win. I think we will win both).

Can probably afford to lose 2 of these 3: @Min, @Atl, @Ne (Tough task, I say @Min)

That puts us at 10, give or take 1 game (say we lay a stinker @Det, or lose 2 of those tough 3).

I think this is a testament to what a good job the coaching staff has done with this injured team, as well as how big the Jets win was. (And, a testament to how much one of those 3 losses would have helped us, had they been wins lol)

Thoughts?

Wilford Brimley · Post #2 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:22 am

Also, the Bears still have to play:

MIN, @Miami ( :lol:

), PHI (

), @Det, NE, @Min, NYJ ( :lol:

), @GB (

)

And Minnesota still has to play:

@Chi, GB, @Was, NYG, CHI, @Phi ( :lol:

), @Det

Post #3 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:41 am

None of the Giants wins have been overly impressive, but they're playing well right now. That's gonna be a battle.

It's tough to predict anything, especially with this team. I know you did this for the sake of discussion, but we could lose to the Lions as easily as we could beat the Pats at their place.

I think we end up 9-7, and that's probably gonna be enough to win the division.

rilamann · Post #4 » by **rilamann** » Sat Nov 6, 2010 8:24 am

Wilford Brimley wrote:
(Please don't blast me for looking so far ahead, I was just bored. )

No oatmeal loving Packer fan would blast you man,you're Wilford **** Brimley!

rilamann · Post #5 » by **rilamann** » Sat Nov 6, 2010 8:28 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_orj4-inTo&feature=related[youtube][/youtube]

Wilford Brimley · Post #6 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:27 am

1 win down, 4 to go!

Win 4 of the following:

@Mn
@Atl
SF
@Det
@Ne
NYG
CHI

SugarRay34 · Post #7 » by **SugarRay34** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:37 am

I say we win @Minnesota, San Fran, @Detroit, and home against Chicago. Maybe win @New England with their defense being so suspect. I will gladly take that to end the season

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #8 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:38 am

If the Vikings win next week and we then beat the Vikings, we can basically start printing Division Champ t-shirts.

Wilford Brimley · Post #9 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:57 am

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:If the Vikings win next week and we then beat the Vikings, we can basically start printing Division Champ t-shirts.

i think you mean "If the Vikings lose," but yes.

Lets take a look here.

Vikings next two weeks: @Chi, GB

Bears next two weeks: MN, @Miami

Vikings next two weeks: BYE, @Mn

If MN goes L and L, the bears go W and L, and we go W, the standings will look like:

Packers: 7-3
Bears: 6-4
Vikings: 3-7

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #10 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:59 am

Wilford Brimley wrote:
MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:If the Vikings win next week and we then beat the Vikings, we can basically start printing Division Champ t-shirts.

i think you mean "If the Vikings lose," but yes.

Lets take a look here.
Vikings next two weeks: @Chi, GB
Bears next two weeks: MN, @Miami
PACKERS next two weeks: BYE, @Mn

If MN goes WIN and L, the bears go L and L, and we go W, the standings will look like:

Packers: 7-3
Bears: 5-5
Vikings: 4-6

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:01 am

No, he means if the Vikings win.

Standings in two weeks could be:

Packers: 7-3
Bears: 5-5
Vikings: 4-6

We want the Vikes to win.

ETA: I should be sleeping.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #12 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:02 am

DrugBust wrote:No, he means if the Vikings win.

Standings in two weeks could be:

Packers: 7-3
Bears: 5-5
Vikings: 4-7

We want the Bears to win.

I'm confused now.

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:03 am

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:
DrugBust wrote:No, he means if the Vikings win.

Standings in two weeks could be:

Packers: 7-3
Bears: 5-5
Vikings: 4-7

We want the Bears to win.

I'm confused now.

My bad. I meant Vikes.

Post #14 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:05 am

By the way, I write that and I sorta gagged. Rationally speaking we should be hoping for a Vikes win but, and I'm not above this, mostly I'm gonna be cheering for season ending injuries. Whatever.

Wilford Brimley · Post #15 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:07 am

So we want MN to beat the Bears?

I am afraid of MN getting on a bit of a roll, and 1 or 2 more losses and MN would be completely out of it. Also, CHI has a much tougher schedule coming up, and realistically could lose out.

Post #16 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:09 am

Wilford Brimley wrote:So we want MN to beat the Bears?

I am afraid of MN getting on a bit of a roll, and 1 or 2 more losses and MN would be completely out of it. Also, CHI has a much tougher schedule coming up, and realistically could lose out.

It's a valid argument. I'll be able to see both sides of this one.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #17 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:16 am

DrugBust wrote:By the way, I write that and I sorta gagged. Rationally speaking we should be hoping for a Vikes win but, and I'm not above this, mostly I'm gonna be cheering for season ending injuries. Whatever.

Yeah, too bad games don't end in a tie in the NFL..

/mcnabb

trwi7 · Post #18 » by **trwi7** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:29 am

I'll admit it. I want the Bears to win next Sunday. I think the Vikings have an easier schedule down the stretch, plus I hate the Vikings more than the Bears.

El Duderino · Post #19 » by **El Duderino** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 7:52 am

trwi7 wrote:I'll admit it. I want the Bears to win next Sunday. I think the Vikings have an easier schedule down the stretch, plus I hate the Vikings more than the Bears.

Bears do have a tougher schedule, but we could end the Vikings chances simply by beating them in two weeks.

Plus, the Queens do have to play

Green Bay in Minnesota, toss up IMO

at Washington which is no gimme

NY Giants at home and the Giants front four could cause havoc on the Vikes mediocre OL

Chicago at home which is a likely win, but no lock

at Philly which i think is a good bet loss

at Detroit which is no gimme either, especially if Stafford is healthy

I have a hard time seeing them avoiding at least two losses even if they beat the Bears next week and that would leave them 9-7. I see us finishing 10-6.

So i'd rather see the Vikings win, but the great thing about those two teams still having to play twice is no matter what, two losses between the teams will come from the games.

Wilford Brimley · Post #20 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Mon Nov 8, 2010 2:57 pm

Here is the Vikings and Bears remaining schedule.

MIN: @Chi, GB, @Was, BUF, NYG, CHI, @Phi, @Det

CHI: MN, @Miami, PHI, @Det, NE, @Min, NYJ, @GB

Chicago could seriously lose out, IMO. So I want them to beat MN, as MN's schedule is a lot easier.