PlayoffsPlease

That is not the question in the title or the original post. Would you be happy if Allen played line Aaron Rodgers last night?

Mitch was pretty good last year. I would be happy with that.

That they help their team win lots of super bowls?

the nfl is putting an asterisk next to his stats, so everyone knows they are just gadget play stats.

it is an odd default to use the merged title. not a big deal. but i don't know who michael robinson is, so i was surprised to see i started a thread about him

Assuming no injuries, I am expecting 4,000 yards passing and passer rating in the low 90's. I am also expecting 600+ yards rushing. I do not expect him to have any tackles. I do not expect him to have any catches.

More likely is that we don't get the 6th round pick. But it was not reported as conditional

This threads title is not the title I originally had. Seems strange that it was changed.

Heck, if we can make him look like Rodgers last night, I will be happy.

Conventional wisdom says that defenses are ahead of offenses in the early part of the season. Last nights season opener is certainly a data point supporting that theory. But I am wondering if "being ahead" is really true. Or if what we really see early in the season is that "Fully healthy defenses are much more effective against fully healthy offenses, when compared to banged up defenses against banged up offenses" Setting aside the issue of losing a starting QB, since offenses control the play, it may be more difficult for defenses to exploit an offensive injury than it is for an offense to exploit a defense injury. Even a single injury in the defensive backfield often creates a Justin Rodgers sized hole that offenses can exploit. The loss of an edge rusher or interior linemen allows offenses much more flexibility. By mid-season when their are multiple injuries on defense, the opportunities for offenses would seem to expand significantly which appears as "the offenses are catching up". I don't have anything to back this up other than personal casual observations. Just curious if this topic has ever been studied.

Spread and moneyline both moved significantly since yesterday. When one accounts for the three point home field advantage, bettors are saying the Bills are the better team this week.

Your guess would be wrong. Unless this formula says 100 % win or 100% loss it cannot be wrong. Underdogs win regularly. This model accurately predicts how likely an underdog is to win.

Dude, it was on twitter , has to be true.

I have heard his nickname is Link as in missing link as in missing link to the Super Bowl

This is because teams were able to coast against us last year n many games

Found this chart and article interesting. https://medium.com/the-intelligent-sports-wagerer/what-point-spreads-can-teach-you-about-implied-win-probabilities-a8bb3623d2c5 According to Oddshark, currently 64% of moneyline bets are on the Bills and against the Jets.

Having Peyton Manning tossing the ball helped a bit.

I really think the Bills should crush the Jets this week.

Beane does his homework. He would have had a helmet for him before signing him. Disaster would have been averted.

The Patriots won't win every game. The Chiefs wont win every game. I suspect they will go into every game this season with the view that they "should win" the upcoming game. I fear that losing teams, players and coaches are somewhat self-defeating by parsing the games into "should win" and "should not expect to win" categories. I think you know you have arrived when you stop doing that. I suspect this is the first year the since Reid became coach the Chiefs have this perspective. It may be more accurate to say the Bills-Jets game is a very "important indicator" of where the teams are rather get caught up in the semantics of the game itself being "important". In fact if you think about it, "important game" is pretty much an oxymoron.

To expand on the point you are trying to make, sometimes top teams will meet week 1. If the Chiefs played the Pats week 1, would NOT claim the loser has only a 25% chance of making the playoffs. I will say that with a high degree of certainty you can only lose 6 games and expect to make the playoffs. The Jets and Bills are not the chiefs and patriots. The are truly each "just a team". A loss to the Bills or a loss to the Jets is not the same as a loss to the Patriots or the Chiefs. To expand on your second point, the team that loses is way more likely to be "just a team" than the type of powerhouse that will overcome the historical odds and have an easy March to the playoffs. The most troubling thing to me is how few teams overcome being 2 games below 500 at any point to make the playoffs, 0-2 teams. Single digit success rates or close to it (0-2 is 12%). A week one loss has you 50% of the way to oblivion. 16 games is a really small universe. Its part of what makes football unique from the other major sports.

Until, you hit zero, it means there is a historical chance. 77% chance of success means a 23% chance of failure. The Bills failures are reflected in the chart, becuase it is historical data. Have you ever been to a horse track. Under your theory since every odds on favorite doesn't win, there is no predictive value to the odds at all, which is entirely incorrect.

It is possible the correct question is not "How important is to win week 1, but rather 'How important is to win when your win loss record = .500" At the beginning of the season, it is known that 12/32 teams will make the playoffs. So each teams chances are less than 50%. You can see in this chart that a team with a 0-0 record has about the same chance to make the playoffs as a team with a 3-3 record. About 38%. So you can go three and three without really hurting your chances of winning, but you still have only a 12/32 chance of making the playoffs. After 3-3, it starts dipping significantly for teams with a .500 record. Similarly, if you follow the path of teams 1 game below .500, you can see that the historical success rate of making the playoffs falls significantly even at 0-1, down to 25%. This stays pretty close to the same for the next set of 1 game below .500 records, 1-2 and 2-3 at 25% and 22%. The critical point of demarcation seems to be week seven. If you end up 3-4, your chances have dropped to 19%. If you are 4-3, your chances historically have risen to 50%. 50% is certainly not a lock, but 19% is a steep uphill climb. Historically, if you reach week six with less than 3 wins, its is nearly a given that you will miss the playoffs. So while it is technically true that "game one is only 1 of 16 games you will play", It has a far bigger impact on the likely of making the playoffs than that sentence implies.

This is purely an opinion poll. There is no right or wrong answer.

You should not belabor the point, because you are wrong.