Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 9/7/2018 at 6:09 AM, thurst44 said:

Actually, 538's did not -- they put us middle-of-the-pack at 8-8 with a 2% chance of winning the Super Bowl.


Also, maybe it's just the turn of phrase (and this is an insane level of nitpicking, yet here i go...), but the QBs actually have a little over 1 full game collectively as Peterman played the first half of the San Diego debacle, stood tall in the snow game until the 3rd quarter, and did mop up duty in a couple games (although one was a playoff game).

 

5-11 is reasonable, but I feel at the low end. My head says 7-9, while my heart says 9-7.

This is correct, and it surprised me until I checked how their "ELO" algorithm works. Basically, it knows nothing other than how the team ended the prior season. In other words, unlike what we see in baseball projections (example: Yankees trade for Giancarlo Stanton; his at bats will substitute for some far lesser player like Jacoby Ellsbury; immediately add 4-5 wins to the Yankees' projected win total), the 538 method doesn't really start to have predictive value until we get well into the current season.

Having said that, 7-9 (or even 9-7) isn't crazy, particularly given our weak (beyond the Pats) division. An injury to Tannehill, Darnold not ready, etc., and suddenly we could chalk up 4 wins against equally rated (right now) teams.

Edited by The Frankish Reich
Posted
On 9/2/2018 at 9:39 PM, MrEpsYtown said:

5-11. I think this is more the tank year. I also hope that I am wrong. I do think that 0-8 is a very real possibility and then they make the switch to Allen. 

 

4-12

 

Gonna be a lot of disappointed fans who think we are a double digit win playoff team.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

6-10 plus or minus 1. I think they will be in most games and Josh Allen will start around the half way point and we will wonder why he did start from game one. 

×
×
  • Create New...