Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
Teams that lose the championship game rarely do well the following season. Some of yall are setting yourself up for a Viking like disappointment if you think we're going to come out firing on all cylinders this season.
I'll be ecstatic if we go 10-6 with our schedule.
I keep hearing that, but are there any stats to back it up? what is the average record for those losing teams the following year? I am not refuting it, just wondering if this is legit or some message board lore that gets repeated until its accepted as fact.
Even if there were stats to back it up, it's irrelevant. You could probably find stats to support the notion that most playoff teams rarely do as well the following season simply due to regression to the mean, the law of averages, cap realities and parity.
2010: NFC - Chicago (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - Pittsburgh (following season: WC Round)
2011: NFC - San Francisco (following season: SB Loss) / AFC - Baltimore (following season: SB Champions)
2012: NFC - Atlanta (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: Championship Game)
2013: NFC - San Francisco (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: SB Champions)
2014: NFC - Green Bay (following season: Divisional Round) / AFC - Indianapolis (following season: No Playoffs)
2015: NFC - Arizona (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: SB Champions)
2016: NFC - Green Bay (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - Pittsburgh (following season: Divisional Round)
NE really skews the results on the AFC side. But in the NFC in the past 7 seasons with results:
- 71% didn't make the playoffs the following year
- 29 % made the playoffs with the furthest team losing in the SB
So the results really aren't all that great.
Why not look at Super Bowl winners? Super Bowl losers? All playoff teams? I think you'd find a pretty similar result. Just picking the title game loser seem ridiculously random and meaningless. Do you really think that losing THAT particular game has some bearing on the following year's performance? I mean, I'm no expert, but this seems as silly as those "team history" observations. As if, for example, how the Vikings performed against Buffalo 12 years ago is a factor worth considering in this year's matchup.
No, I think its meaningless. But that wasn't the question that was asked.
The offensive line will make or break the Vikings. Its the only negative the team has compared to other elite NFC teams....but its a critical area.
Throw out the Eagles and Patriots. Which team is best set up for multiple Super Bowl runs? Mike Clay, NFL writer: New Orleans Saints. Yes, Drew Brees is now 39 years old, but he's signed for two more seasons and could have a few additional years in the tank, especially after the team rebuilt its defense, allowing for a more balanced attack. Young stars and high-ceiling prospects such as Alvin Kamara, Michael Thomas, Sheldon Rankins, Cameron Jordan, Marcus Davenport, Marshon Lattimore and Marcus Williams -- along with a terrific offensive line -- help supply New Orleans with one of league's best teams on paper in both the short and long term.
KC Joyner, NFL writer: Los Angeles Rams. Jared Goff ranked tied for fifth in short pass YPA last year (7.0) and fifth in vertical YPA (12.6) last year. His numbers could get even better with the addition of Brandin Cooks, who placed second in vertical receiving yards last season. Combine that with a defensive line that added an impact player in Ndamukong Suh and a secondary that has two potential shutdown cornerbacks in Marcus Peters and Aqib Talib and it is a recipe for repeat Super Bowl contention.
Mike Sando, senior NFL writer: Los Angeles Chargers. The NFC is stacked with strong teams that could cannibalize one another in the coming years, so I'll take the Chargers. Philip Rivers is 36, which is no longer ancient by NFL quarterback standards. He could have a few good years left, and now he finally has a good team around him.
Aaron Schatz, editor-in-chief of Football Outsiders: Green Bay Packers. Offense is more consistent than defense, and nothing gives you a better chance of winning than having the best quarterback in the game. They'll need Aaron Rodgers to stay healthy and the young secondary talent to mature quickly.
Kevin Seifert, national NFL writer: Minnesota Vikings. The 2017 NFC runners-up have relatively young high-end players sprinkled on both sides of the ball, giving them arguably the most balanced roster in football. Most of them are signed through at least the 2020 season. That balance and security means the Vikings could absorb some injuries and still compete at a high level. Quarterback Kirk Cousins, who turns 30 in August, is signed for three years in the prime of his career, and coach Mike Zimmer is one of the NFL's top game-day schemers. The Vikings are as poised for long-term success as any team in the league.
I respect Seifert a lot. Miss him as a local hack...
If Cousins @ 30 is in his prime, what does that mean for Rogers @ 35?
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
Teams that lose the championship game rarely do well the following season. Some of yall are setting yourself up for a Viking like disappointment if you think we're going to come out firing on all cylinders this season.
I'll be ecstatic if we go 10-6 with our schedule.
I keep hearing that, but are there any stats to back it up? what is the average record for those losing teams the following year? I am not refuting it, just wondering if this is legit or some message board lore that gets repeated until its accepted as fact.
Even if there were stats to back it up, it's irrelevant. You could probably find stats to support the notion that most playoff teams rarely do as well the following season simply due to regression to the mean, the law of averages, cap realities and parity.
2010: NFC - Chicago (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - Pittsburgh (following season: WC Round)
2011: NFC - San Francisco (following season: SB Loss) / AFC - Baltimore (following season: SB Champions)
2012: NFC - Atlanta (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: Championship Game)
2013: NFC - San Francisco (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: SB Champions)
2014: NFC - Green Bay (following season: Divisional Round) / AFC - Indianapolis (following season: No Playoffs)
2015: NFC - Arizona (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: SB Champions)
2016: NFC - Green Bay (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - Pittsburgh (following season: Divisional Round)
NE really skews the results on the AFC side. But in the NFC in the past 7 seasons with results:
- 71% didn't make the playoffs the following year
- 29 % made the playoffs with the furthest team losing in the SB
So the results really aren't all that great.
But if you look at what happened to the teams that did not make the playoffs, almost each one had serious QB issues/questions (either injured or they were "figured out" in that they actually sucked (ala Collin Kapernick / Jay Cutler). Just hope that our new QB comes through - and if he does we are at least in the playoffs.
Pat Mahomes has thrown seven interceptions through six practices at Chiefs training camp.
He threw three picks on Wednesday alone. Chiefs OC Eric Bienemy acknowledged Mahomes has experienced "hiccups," albeit unsurprising for a first-year starter with a gunslinger's game. Beat writer Adam Teicher did note Mahomes is mixing in "his fair share of big plays in practice." Practice is an ideal setting for Mahomes to go through growing pains, of course. Regardless, he's likely to be a higher-variance option than predecessor Alex Smith.
Chiefs feature Patrick Mahomes at QB and the NFL's 28th ranked defense. Yeah, but they're better than the Vikings. LOL.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
Teams that lose the championship game rarely do well the following season. Some of yall are setting yourself up for a Viking like disappointment if you think we're going to come out firing on all cylinders this season.
I'll be ecstatic if we go 10-6 with our schedule.
I keep hearing that, but are there any stats to back it up? what is the average record for those losing teams the following year? I am not refuting it, just wondering if this is legit or some message board lore that gets repeated until its accepted as fact.
Even if there were stats to back it up, it's irrelevant. You could probably find stats to support the notion that most playoff teams rarely do as well the following season simply due to regression to the mean, the law of averages, cap realities and parity.
2010: NFC - Chicago (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - Pittsburgh (following season: WC Round)
2011: NFC - San Francisco (following season: SB Loss) / AFC - Baltimore (following season: SB Champions)
2012: NFC - Atlanta (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: Championship Game)
2013: NFC - San Francisco (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: SB Champions)
2014: NFC - Green Bay (following season: Divisional Round) / AFC - Indianapolis (following season: No Playoffs)
2015: NFC - Arizona (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - New England (following season: SB Champions)
2016: NFC - Green Bay (following season: No Playoffs) / AFC - Pittsburgh (following season: Divisional Round)
NE really skews the results on the AFC side. But in the NFC in the past 7 seasons with results:
- 71% didn't make the playoffs the following year
- 29 % made the playoffs with the furthest team losing in the SB
So the results really aren't all that great.
Or you could look at it and say that in 3 out of the past 7 years, one of the teams that lost in the CG the year before won the Super Bowl the following year. That is statistics for ya.
Regardless, that SI list is a complete bunch of horseshit, I don't think there is any other way around it. They have questions regarding Cousins, but no major issues with QBs like Goff, Mahomes, Garoppolo, and freaking Bortles??
|
