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.
Quote: @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.
Quote: @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.
No team is going to be as good in September as they will be in mid-November, sans massive injuries. The NFC is loaded, as has been stated numerous times. But the X-factor should be Minnesota's defense. Cook and Cousins are upgrades. Sheldon Richardson is going to be a force.
If you're ecstatic about 10 wins, then God Bless ya'......but I put their floor at 11 wins.
Quote: @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.
We have a tough schedule. Lots of traveling, coast to coast from one week to the next.
BUT, our team has the right owner, the right coach, and the right GM. Add to that, a stacked roster and playoff experience.
Over the past 40 plus years, this team has kicked me in the nuts plenty. However, this year, I would be shocked if we lose more than 4 games.
Quote: @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.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ suncoastvike said:
So we are ranked behind 4 teams that account for 6 of our 14 wins last season. That makes Viking sense.
All we ask for is a little respect...that's exactly how much we get.
For me, the media's rationale for stuff like this is always interesting (one way to put it, I suppose). But here, its an issue of not fully buying into Kirk Cousins and then conversely, all-in on Aaron Rodger's return to the lineup in Green Bay. We'll find out here in not too long.
The part that is puzzling is that IF Cousins 'isn't that much of an upgrade over Keenum', isn't the logic still that the team has improved at the position, even if slightly under this opinion? I think the Rams are being seriously overhyped, although I think they will be a good team.
I think the media will want to see Cousins in a new environment before they completely buy in. The truth is that with a new QB and OC there may be a learning curve early in the season that ultimately puts the Vikings in 10-15 range until everything comes together. I can neither agree nor disagree personally since there is literally nothing to base an opinion on at this point.
Ok, but at the same time, look what Keenum did: his first year in Minnesota, just like Cousins. New coordinator for Case. Same scenario. And he excelled. Had even less time/reps to gain rapport than Cousins will have as he was the backup.
If the Vikings are the 12th-15th best team in the NFL early, they really were a fluke last season. And there's no excuse losing to San Francisco first game of the year at home: they've got many more holes than the Vikings.
I have higher expectations myself. 10 wins is not their ceiling. That's really only about the season average under Zimmer 9.75 per. That average was brought down by his rookie season (7-9) with a rookie QB and suspension of his top offensive weapon. Take away some for a 8-8 season where the team was decimated by injuries. If the stay healthy I can't see them winning less then 11 or 12 games. Of course I'm a homer. However Zimmer's track record so far has shown. Give him a healthy team he'll give you wins. Time now to get them wins in January as well.
Quote: @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.
I prefer to look at the odds set in Las Vegas, they actually have some skin in the game!
NFL Super Bowl odds 2019: Predictions, picks, teams to fade from Vegas expertThe NFL Draft is in the books. So is Super Bowl LII. Now, all eyes in the NFL are on the start of training camp and the 2019 Super Bowl, which takes place at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta on Feb. 3 on CBS. Major sports books are already taking action on which team hoists the Lombardi Trophy in 2019, and Tom Brady and the New England Patriots are the early 5-1 Super Bowl LIII favorites. Right behind the Pats on the 2019 Super Bowl odds board are the Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles, both going off at 8-1.
Before you make your picks on NFL futures, you need to see what SportsLine stat geek R.J. White has to say. White finished in the top 1 percent of the Las Vegas SuperContest last season. It was no fluke, either, as he also cashed big-time in the 2015 SuperContest.
Part of his success: White has years of experience analyzing NFL statistics and trends, dating all the way back to Super Bowl XXV. He knows what it takes to win on football's biggest stage.
New England Patriots: 5-1
Pittsburgh Steelers: 8-1
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-1
Los Angeles Rams: 10-1
Green Bay Packers: 12-1
Minnesota Vikings: 12-1
San Francisco 49ers: 16-1
Houston Texans: 18-1
Kansas City Chiefs: 18-1
Jacksonville Jaguars: 18-1
New Orleans Saints: 18-1
Dallas Cowboys: 20-1
Atlanta Falcons: 25-1
Oakland Raiders: 25-1
Los Angeles Chargers: 25-1
Carolina Panthers: 40-1
Denver Broncos: 50-1
Baltimore Ravens: 40-1
Tennessee Titans: 40-1
Indianapolis Colts: 40-1
Detroit Lions: 50-1
New York Giants: 50-1
Seattle Seahawks: 60-1
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 60-1
Chicago Bears: 60-1
New York Jets: 80-1
Buffalo Bills: 80-1
Arizona Cardinals: 100-1
Washington Redskins: 100-1
Miami Dolphins: 100-1
Cincinnati Bengals: 100-1
Cleveland Browns: 100-1
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-super-bowl-odds-2019-predictions-picks-teams-to-fade-from-vegas-expert/
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.
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.
Quote: @Neptizzle said:
6 NFC teams above us? wow. so we are 13-3 last year, upgrade our #1 D and QB situation and are now not even a playoff team... I get how they love GB, but no other explination. garbage.
Not to mention we add Delvin Cook (the leading RB in the whole dang NFL when he got injured) back into the starting lineup. But, yeah: I'd prefer to be the underdogs. But I wouldn't be so stupid as to wear a dog-mask to advertise it. That'd be lame as hell.
|
