Thursday, September 4, 2008
2008 NFL Predictions
Remember: Each year, about four of the eight division winners fail to repeat. Any season prediction that says seven out of eight division winners will repeat is a) cowardly and b) probably wrong. Thus, I am contractually bound to name at least four new division winners on the season. Three were fairly easy for me. The fourth was a tough one and will probably be wrong, but nothing ventured...
y-Division Winner
x-Wild Card
AFC East
1. New England-y
2. Buffalo
3. NY Jets
4. Miami
Tough to go against the Patriots. They could lose four games off their 2007 win total and still finish win the best record in the AFC. The Bills and Jets will make some noise, but they're not ready for prime time just yet. The less said about the Dolphins, the better, though there is some hope for the future with the young players they're stockpiling.
AFC North
1. Cleveland-y
2. Pittsburgh
3. Cincinnati
4. Baltimore
I'm not enamored with Cleveland, especially their offense, but I'll go with them anyway because I think they have better line play (offensive and defensive) than Pittsburgh, a team in a bit of a transitional period as they try to rebuild their offensive line. Cincinnati will continue to be an enigma, looking great one week and lousy the next and probably finishing 7-9 or 8-8. Baltimore lost its HOF offensive tackle and will be starting either a rookie (Joe Flacco) or second-year fifth-round pick (Troy Smith) at QB. Not good.
AFC South
1. Indianapolis-y
2. Houston-x
3. Jacksonville
4. Tennessee
As with New England, I can't go against Indianapolis, though I think it's possible they only win 10-11 games this year. And here's my first big surprise. Houston goes to the playoffs, largely on the strength of their young defense, led by Mario Williams, DeMeco Ryans, and Amobi Okoye. Jacksonville is probably the most overrated team in football -- David Garrard is good, but nobody actually consistently throws fewer than 1% of their passes for interceptions. That's going to have to balance out. And speaking of QBs and interceptions, Vince Young is like Michael Vick without the passing skills, and that's not very good.
AFC West
1. Denver-y
2. San Diego-x
3. Kansas City
4. Oakland
Here's my "division winner I'm changing because I have to, not because I want to" pick. With all the injuries they've suffered, not the least of which is Shawne Merriman, I think the Chargers slip a little this year. Oakland and KC aren't ready to compete (though with their stellar draft, I think the Chiefs are closer than a lot of people thing), so I'll go with Denver, which is probably as crazy a choice as the Houston pick.
NFC East
1. Dallas-y
2. Philadelphia-x
3. NY Giants
4. Washington
I don't think Dallas is a 13-3 team, but the rest of the division doesn't do anything for me. I'll give Philly and Donovan McNabb one more chance at greatness in the playoffs, though. I think everyone agrees that the Giants were a bit of a fluke last year, and with their losses on the defensive line, they'll be lucky to break .500. Todd Collins somehow captured lightning in a bottle and got the Redskins to the playoffs. They'll be lucky to avoid double-digit losses this year.
NFC North
1. Minnesota-y
2. Green Bay-x
3. Detroit
4. Chicago
Minnesota was the busiest team in the offseason and, with the losses suffered by the rest of the division, could have the easiest road in their division of all the teams. I think Aaron Rodgers will be decent, and the Packers' running game and defense will keep them solidly in the mix all year and probably lead to 9 or 10 wins and a playoff spot. Detroit's got some nice weapons on offense (Calvin Johnson and Roy Williams), but they won't get to 10 wins (sorry, Jon Kitna). Chicago could be a trainwreck; they have Devin Hester and Brian Urlacher and...uh...anyone?
NFC South
1. New Orleans-y
2. Tampa Bay
3. Carolina
4. Atlanta
If Reggie Bush stays healthy, New Orleans could have the most potent offense in the league this side of New England. He's not an every-down back, but his receiving skills make him a dangerous weapon. I'll probably get ripped for this (again), but I just can't believe in Tampa Bay. How old is Jeff Garcia? 38? Truthfully, I think Carolina could be worse than Atlanta. Jake Delhomme started off nice last year before being lost for the season, but he's not a 111.8-rating kind of guy. If Julius Peppers doesn't rebound from his lousy 2007, it could be another long year for Panther fans. At least Atlanta knows they're rebuilding, though they'll be lucky to win five games.
NFC West
1. Seattle-y
2. Arizona
3. St. Louis
4. San Francisco
You don't know how badly I want to pick against Seattle. Can Julius Jones really be the answer at RB? And Bobby Engram and Nate Burleson are your top WRs? But I've given up trying to believe in Arizona until they definitively show me they can get it done. They might go 8-8, they might go 4-12, they might go 12-4. I think all are equally likely, but I'm just not going to jump on their train. A full year of Steven Jackson will do much to cure the Rams' ills. JT O'Sullivan will probably put up nice numbers in San Francisco, now that he's got Mike Martz running the offense, but ask Jon Kitna how that worked in Detroit.
And now we come to the final part: my predictions for conference champions and the Super Bowl winner. More than a few pundits are picking you-know-who to win the NFC and even the Super Bowl; ESPN's Mike Greenberg picked a Minnesota/Jacksonville Super Bowl, with Minnesota proving triumphant (though, you know, that would be a rather boring game, with probably about 75% running plays and no passes deeper than 15 yards).
Me? I just have trouble doing it. I know I put $10 on the Vikings to win the Super Bowl. And maybe this news, on the eve of the new season's start, is some kind of omen. But...but...if I make that prediction, and they fall short, I'll feel disappointed (and feel like a homer). The pressure, the pressure....
AFC Champion: New England
NFC Champion: Minnesota
Super Bowl Winner: New England
There. I feel better now. Or maybe worse. I'll let you know in February.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
2008 Minnesota Vikings preview
Like last year, I'll be posting a position-by-position breakdown of the team, along with my predicted stats for each significant player. And, whenever the Vikings' season ends (hopefully very, very late), I'll do a recap to see how far off I was (last year: not bad). Yes, I know that predicting exact yardage totals and the like are very silly, but I think I'm allowed one silly predictive post like this a year.
Quarterback:
Tarvaris Jackson: 2,700 passing yards, 16 TDs, 15 Int., 400 rushing yards, 3 rushing TDs
The one weakness most people are focusing on for the 2008 Vikings is at quarterback, where third-year man Tarvaris Jackson gets one more shot to prove that he can lead his team. Skeptics abound, and with good reason; at times in 2007, Jackson looked to be playing way out of his league and, despite a month of good showings in November, the team finished the season with two losses and wound up out of the playoff picture.
Among his backers are those who point out the team went 8-4 with him as the starting quarterback, even though his efforts were largely irrelevant in the face of Adrian Peterson rushing for 296 yards or the defense forcing a handful of turnovers. And, despite the dearest wishes of Vikings fans, there simply is no reason why a second-year quarterback must automatically improve in his third year. I'd say he has about an equal chance of falling apart as he does of putting up a great season.
To its credit, the team did what it could to help out its young quarterback, signing wide receiver Bernard Berrian away from the Chicago Bears in the offseason. The offensive line is solid, even if Bryant McKinnie won't play until October, and ditching Troy Williamson should be good for at least a few more completions a season. Truthfully, with all the help he's got, Jackson probably should improve in 2008, but it's not a guarantee. And he'll still have to stay healthy, which is some concern; he was taken out of two games in 2007 with injuries and missed four starts and didn't appear in the final two preseason games after suffering a knee injury against Baltimore.
As such, my prediction here is rather middle-of-the-road, if not quietly optimistic. Assuming 240/400 completions/attempts (60%) season, it computes out to a 77.9 passer rating -- adequate, but not overly impressive. While I will agree that he looked good at times last year, there were also far too many instances of his throwing a ball into coverage and, during the second Chicago game, just lobbing it up into the air while being sacked, an easy interception for the defense. Every quarterback (not just the Jets' quarterback, as the media would like you to believe) has a desire to complete every pass and make every play; but all of them have to realize when it's just not possible. If Jackson can learn that and provide just enough of a threat through the passing game so that teams can't key 100% on the run, the Vikings playoff run could be deep, indeed.
With Brooks Bollinger gone, the backup plan is the aging Gus Frerotte and rookie John David Booty. Considering Jackson's injury history, it's likely that at least Frerotte will see some time at the position this year, but Vikings fans hope it will be minimal. The team went with Booty over Brooks Bollinger as the #3 QB and, if Jackson stumbles, he could be the long-term solution at the position...just hopefully not in 2008.
Position Grade: C+
Running back:
Adrian Peterson: 1,400 rushing yards, 350 receiving yards, 14 TDs
Chester Taylor: 500 rushing yards, 150 receiving yards, 4 TDs
The numbers above might seem a bit low for most Adrian Peterson predictions, but I'm trying to keep in mind both his potential for injury and his poor showing in the latter part of last season. Also, keep in mind that Peterson rushed for over 500 yards in two of his games last year...while it would be nice, predicting two 200+ yard games for a back in a season is something I just can't do. And I'd rather be wrong in the low direction than wrong in the high direction.
Nonetheless, the team will continue to rely on its running game in 2008, and the two-headed Peterson/Taylor monster should be in full force, running wild in opposing defensive backfields. Taylor, however, will turn 29 in September, and while he's only had one season as a full-time starter (2006), he's getting to be of the age where backs can decline precipitously.
But if he falters, at least we've got Maurice Hicks to back him up, right? I'll get into this more when we get down to the "Special Teams" part of things, but releasing Mewelde Moore and signing Hicks was a questionable move at best. Hopefully, Hicks won't see the field except in a few blowout games.
Position grade: A
Wide Receiver/Tight End:
Bernard Berrian: 65 catches, 1,050 yards, 7 TDs
Sidney Rice: 45 catches, 650 yards, 3 TDs
Bobby Wade: 25 catches, 325 yards, 2 TDs
Visanthe Shiancoe: 20 catches, 250 yards, 1 TD
After employing the likes of Travis Taylor, Bobby Wade, and Nate Burleson as #1 receivers the past few years (or "A.R." meaning "After Randy"), the Vikings finally went out and got themselves a #1 receiver in Bernard Berrian -- or so they hope. In a somewhat controversial move, the team signed Berrian away from division rival Chicago for 6 years and a potential $42 million. All this for a guy who doesn't even have a 1,000 yard season as a pro and might not this year, either.
You could certainly blame Berrian's flashes-of-brilliance-but-not-consistently-good-numbers career on his quarterbacking partners during his time in Chicago. Moving to Minnesota, however, won't greatly improve that situation and, with the running game as it is, the team won't likely rely on Berrian as the lynchpin to its offense. Some have said that he has poor hands, but that's likely untrue. At the very least, he's a threat, and him running downfield should help open up lanes for the running game. And if he can occasionally haul in a deep ball from Jackson, all the better.
Sidney Rice looks to be an up-and-coming...well, maybe not star, but at least solid #2 wide receiver. His opportunities will be limited in the Vikings' offense, though. Now the #3 receiver, Bobby Wade could do some good things working out of the slot. Robert Ferguson is old and nursing a calf injury, while second-year man Aundrae Allison is best suited for kick-return duties. Overall, it's not a great bunch, but they don't have to be.
Position grade: B-
Offensive line:
The line performed way above expectations last year, helping the team to a league-high 5.3 yards per rush attempt and allowing Tarvaris Jackson to be sacked a fairly average 6.1% of the time. The loss of Bryant McKinnie for the first four games will be noticed, but hopefully not too much. The real question is, can the line continue to open up holes for the running game like it did in 2007 and keep Tarvaris Jackson upright enough to allow him to mature as a passer?
I'll say tentatively, "yes." While I think the unit will come down some -- another reason for my fairly conservative Adrian Peterson rushing total -- I think Matt Birk, at 32, still has enough in the tank for one more good season, Steve Hutchinson will continue his solid play, and the right side of Anthony Herrera and Ryan Cook deserve at least some of the credit for last year's good line play -- after all, the team couldn't run to the left every down. Artis Hicks should do a decent job of holding down the fort until McKinnie's return.
Position Grade: A-
Defensive Line:
I've been drooling over writing this entry since April, when the team acquired Jared Allen from the Chiefs while I was sitting in a Vegas casino. That had to be some sort of omen, right? While I'm even more loathe to give predictions about defensive statistics than I am about offensive statistics, I'm going to guess that Allen will have somewhere around a dozen sacks for the year, which is probably about in line for what a player of his age and history should have.
However, his presence should lead to more opportunities for the rest of the defensive line to wreak havoc in opposing backfields. It wouldn't suprise me in the least to see Kevin Williams get back to double-digit sacks for the first time since 2004, and opposite end Ray Edwards could also approach double digits (though he won't be anywhere near Michael Strahan's record). Only Pat Williams shouldn't be a factor in what could be the league's best pass rush, but he doesn't have to be. At 35 (soon to be 36) years of age and 317 (hee) pounds, his concern should be on staying fresh and healthy throughout the season, because for all the talent they have on the first string, the Vikings lack quality depth along the line.
Brian Robison is virtually interchangable with Edwards at the end spot, but the team essentially lost three defensive linemen in the offseason: Erasmus James (Washington), Spencer Johnson (Buffalo), and Kenichi Udeze (leukemia), leaving Otis Grigsby, Ellis Wyms, and Fred Evans as the team's primary backups along the line. That's not a greatly comforting thought, but if this unit can stay healthy, it could evoke memories of the Purple People Eaters of old.
Position Grade: A
Linebackers:
A steadily improving unit, the Vikings' linebacking corps looks to be at its best in years. EJ Henderson mans the middle and logged 119 tackles a year ago. Ben Leber and former first-rounder Chad Greenway play the edges, allowing the unit to return all three of its starters from a year ago. Greenway in particular, played very well last year, ranging all around the field and picking off two balls, including one returned for a touchdown. The defensive line is elite, but this unit isn't too far behind.
As with the line, though, the linebackers lack depth. Backup and special teamer Heath Farwell was lost in the preseason and the team cut last year's sixth-round pick, Rufus Alexander. Of the team's three backups, only Vinny Ciurciu has had any significant playing time, and most of that coming on special teams. David Herron and Erin Henderson, EJ's brother, will need to step up if their number is called.
Position Grade: A-
Defensive Backs:
Here's the only defensive unit that would not rate as "very good" in anyone's book, though the Vikings' seeming weakness against the pass in recent years is largely attributable to teams being unwilling to run on them. An improved pass rush should help, as should the addition of safety Madieu Williams, lured away from the Bengals in free agency. Williams will miss the first part of the season with a neck injury, however. As a result, the team's top draft pick from 2008, second-rounder Tyrell Johnson, will step into his place. If nothing else, it'll be a good chance for the team to see what Johnson's got and get some idea as to whether he can replace Darren Sharper when his contract expires at the end of the season.
Antoine Winfield and Cedric Griffin man the corner positions; Winfield needs to stay healthy and Griffin needs to step up his play so as not to be pressured for the starting job by Marcus McCauley, who'll be the team's primary nickel back. Unlike the other defensive positions, this unit has decent depth, though the loss of Michael Boulware for the season takes away a potential contributor. Overall, it will probably be the same situation as in previous years, in that teams reluctant to run on the Vikings will go to the pass more and more, and, even with the improved pass rush from Jared Allen and the rest of the line, there are times when the Vikings defensive backfield will get torched -- but hey, at least it won't be by Brett Favre any more!
Position Grade: B
Special Teams:
Ryan Longwell returns for his third year in purple, and Vikings fans have little to complain about regarding his performance. Of his four misses in 2007, three came from beyond 50 yards, and he hasn't missed a kick from 40 yards or closer since joining the team. A little more distance on kickoffs would be nice, but I think most fans are happy with the total package.
And then there's the man, the myth, the legend, the Guitar Hero, Chris Kluwe. Appearing to be fully recovered from the sprained ankle he suffered near the end of the 2005 season, Kluwe averaged a career-best 44.7 yards per punt in 2007, while downing 42% of his punts inside the opponents' 20, third-best in the league. His contributions will be even more evident in 2008 -- after all, who wants to try and drive 90 yards against this defense?
That brings us to the return game. Despite a mediocre 22.9 yards per kick return and no touchdowns for his career, the Vikings somehow thought Maurice Hicks would be a good choice as the team's kickoff-return specialist, despite having Aundrae Allison, who averaged 28.7 on returns including a touchdown, in his rookie season. Allison's currently penciled into the punt-return slot, despite never having returned one in his pro career. Perhaps the Vikings should swap those two positions, letting Allison return kicks and letting Hicks, with his running back moves, take a shot at returning punts? Better yet, let's beg the Steelers to give us back Mewelde Moore.
Position Grade: B
Overall:
Last year, I said the Vikings were "a team split right down the middle -- plus defense, minus offense." Astoundingly, the team looks to have improved both sides of the ball in the offseason, and my assessment last year didn't take Adrian Peterson's rise to stardom into account. The niggling problem of aging players is always a concern -- nobody expects a good player to actually decline, though they always do -- but the team is generally young enough, except in a few spots, that age shouldn't be a major concern.
This year, I'd say that the team possesses an average, maybe slightly above average offense. And the defense. Remember 1993? When Jim McMahon and Roger Craig started the season as the team's quarterback and running back? When John Randle and Chris Doleman and Jack Del Rio were all playing for the defense? Back then, I remember being more interested in watching the defense play than the offense because having the defense on the field, I thought, gave us a better chance to score. That team rated first in the league in yards allowed that season and snuck into the playoffs despite a 17th-ranked offense.
I think this year's Vikings have a much better offense than the 1993 version, but the defense might be so much better as to make the defense:offense ratio similar to the 1993 team. I know, I know, it's still all "on paper," but this defense has the potential to be the league's best unit in 2008, and that can make for a lot of fun viewing. Sure, I'll still like to watch Adrian Peterson (and I'll still cringe every time T-Jack drops back), but the real fun will be in watching Jared Allen harass opposing QBs and EJ Henderson take down running backs. The offense should be good enough to win a few games, but this is the rare team that will look to its defense to dominate and put games out of reach. I'm not quite ready to jump on Dr. Z's bandwagon and I'm notoriously pessimistic, but this team should go far -- maybe even as far as a team can go.
My Prediction: 11-5, 1st in the NFC North
Position Grade:
Monday, August 11, 2008
The 2008 NFL and the Favorite Toy
It's tougher to use such methodology for football players, given the vast differences in playing time, play calling, and any individual player's reliance on the performance of the rest of his team. But maybe it can give us some insight into overall team performance. Specifically, maybe it can help us predict the number of wins a team will have in the next season.
The formula for figuring out next season's win total is simple:
[(3 * wins from last year) + (2 * wins from two years ago) + (wins from three years ago)] / 6
Thus, last year's win total is weighed most heavily, but previous years' totals are also significant, thus lessening the impact of an unusually good (or bad) season. To test the accuracy of this method, I computed each team's estimated 2007 win total, using their 2006, 2005, and 2004 seasons. Rather than bore you with the whole chart, I'll use this summary chart to show how accurate it was:
WinDiff | TeamsLY | TeamsFT |
0 | 1 | 6 |
1 | 4 | 6 |
2 | 9 | 4 |
3 | 5 | 3 |
4 | 4 | 8 |
5 | 5 | 3 |
6 | 3 | 2 |
7 | 0 | 0 |
8 | 1 | 0 |
"WinDiff" is the difference in wins from 2006 to 2007. "TeamsLY" is the actual number of teams with that difference in wins from 2006 to 2007. "TeamsFT" is the number of teams with that difference in wins between their predicted wins by the Favorite Toy method and their actual 2007 wins.
In other words, only one team -- the Buffalo Bills -- had the same record in 2007 that it did in 2006, and thus was 0 wins off. If you had tried to pick every team's record in 2007 based solely on their performance in 2006 -- which a lot of people tend to do -- you would have gotten one pick correct. You would have been off by one win 4 times, by two wins 9 times, and so on. (That's Baltimore, BTW, which lost 8 wins from its 2006 season.)
On the other hand, if you'd used the Favorite Toy to try and guess teams' wins, you would have been right on target 6 times, off by one win another 6 times, and off by two wins 4 times. I consider anything within two wins to be "close enough," so that means you would have been "close" on 16 or 32 teams.
Granted, that ain't saying much; any method that is right half the time is not much better than a coin flip. However, the FT was, overall, more accurate than the "last year" method, at least for the 2007 season: On average, the FT missed by 2.56 wins, compared to the LY missing by 3.25. I haven't run this for multiple years, so I don't know if it's always more accurate, but it's a nice start.
Also, for many of the teams that badly missed their FT estimate, you can find extenuating circumstances that help explain why they were so far off. Some teams had notable off-seasons, such as the Patriots (off by 4) acquiring Randy Moss or Atlanta's (4) Michael Vick debacle. Others had in-season reasons to explain their inaccuracies, either due to injury or ineffective key players, primarily quarterbacks -- like Chicago (4), St. Louis (4), Baltimore (5), or Miami (6) -- or, in a few cases, unexpectedly great play from the QB position -- as was the case with Green Bay (6), Cleveland (5), Dallas (4), and Arizona (3). In fact, nearly every team that missed their expected number of wins by the FT method had significantly better or worse play at quarterback than expected. While I'm not of the opinion that a great quarterback is absolutely essential to a team's success (and I better not be, being a Vikings fan this year), it seems that a QB performing markedly different from his expectations, for either good or bad, can have a profound impact on his team's successes.
(On a similar note, I thought yesterday, "What if Tarvaris Jackson is really good this year? Say, along the lines of 3,500 passing yards and 25 TDs?" A lot of people think we'll do well with a mediocre QB, but what if we had a really good one?)
Injuries and variances in play are virtually impossible to predict. In terms of notable off-seasons, I think the Packers, Jets -- both teams even before last week's trade -- and the Vikings had the most eventful. Still the Favorite Toy can't take that into account, so we're left with just the raw numbers from the previous three seasons' worth of games. I'll close today with the 2008 NFL standings, as predicted by the Favorite Toy, using the 2005-2007 standings:
W | L | |
New England | 14 | 2 |
Buffalo | 7 | 9 |
NY Jets | 6 | 10 |
Miami | 4 | 12 |
Pittsburgh | 10 | 6 |
Baltimore | 8 | 8 |
Cincinnati | 8 | 8 |
Cleveland | 7 | 9 |
Indianapolis | 13 | 3 |
Jacksonville | 10 | 6 |
Tennessee | 8 | 8 |
Houston | 6 | 10 |
San Diego | 12 | 4 |
Denver | 9 | 7 |
Kansas City | 7 | 9 |
Oakland | 3 | 13 |
Dallas | 11 | 5 |
NY Giants | 10 | 6 |
Philadelphia | 8 | 8 |
Washington | 8 | 8 |
Green Bay | 10 | 6 |
Chicago | 8 | 8 |
Minnesota | 8 | 8 |
Detroit | 5 | 11 |
Carolina | 8 | 8 |
Tampa Bay | 8 | 8 |
New Orleans | 7 | 9 |
Atlanta | 6 | 10 |
Seattle | 10 | 6 |
Arizona | 7 | 9 |
San Francisco | 6 | 10 |
St. Louis | 5 | 11 |
Comment at will.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Strength (of Schedule) Training
There are, however, two problems with this line of thought:
Number one is fairly obvious: Teams change. The 2008 Dallas Cowboys or Jacksonville Jaguars are not the same as the 2007 Cowboys or Jaguars. From year to year, teams get better or worse, in equal measure. If anyone wanted to make a bet with me that either of those divisions will send three teams to the playoffs next year, I'd take it, straight up. One or two teams might be that consistent from year to year, but not six to eight. As I said in my post regarding opposing misery index, last year is last year, and things can (and invariably will) change.
The second is the equality of scheduling in the NFL. Yes, it stinks for the Vikings to have to play the AFC South, but the rest of their division has to do the same. And while that does put them at a disadvantage in the NFC as a whole, if they are competing for the wild card, keep in mind that at least one other division has to face a similarly difficult road. The NFC West plays all four teams of the NFC East, and while the South may not have quite the same caliber of opponents, the North plays the South, and so we control our own destiny in the conference, at least in some part.
Going back to point #1, it's highly unlikely that the teams in the NFC East and AFC South will fare as unilaterally well as they did in 2007. To wit, I looked back through the years since the league went to a 16-game schedule to see if there were any other divisions that boasted at least two 10-win teams and no teams at all under .500, as both the NFCE and AFCS did last year. I thought I might find a few, but I was surprised at the results.
Over 27 full seasons since 1978, only one other division -- the five-team, 1999 AFC East -- met those criteria, with Indianapolis (13-3), Buffalo (11-5), Miami (9-7), New England (8-8), and New York (8-8) combining to post a stellar 29-11 (.725) record outside their division. Next year was more moderate, with the teams posting 11-5, 10-6, 9-7, 8-8, and 5-11 records, for a total of 23-17 (.575) winning percentage outside their division. Of course, the teams totaled 20-20 in in-division games.
So the 2000 AFC East, while still above average, was hardly some great boogeyman to be feared, and I think the 2008 NFC North and AFC South will be similar -- good, but not likely great divisions. Strength of schedule is a neat little thing to look at and something for fans to get up in arms about during the off-season (You do know that the reason the Patriots have the easiest strength of schedule -- or at least a contributing factor -- is because they don't play themselves, right?), but it ultimately has very little effect on how a team will perform in the coming year.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
2008 Strength of Schedule, Misery-wise
The results are below. Remember, this chart represents the average turnover+sack total each of these teams will face for the upcoming season, based on their opponents' 2007 stats. It's like taking every 2008's opponents' win-loss record and combining it all to say that teams opposing Team X had a .530 winning percentage in 2007. It doesn't necessarily mean that team has an extremely tough schedule the next season -- the opposing teams change from year to year, and .530 is so close to .500 as to be nearly insignificant -- but it gets people talking (and usually complaining about their team's "tough" schedule or another team's "easy" schedule).
Team | Misery |
New Orleans Saints | 67.4 |
Arizona Cardinals | 67.2 |
New England Patriots | 67.1 |
Washington Redskins | 65.5 |
Seattle Seahawks | 65.4 |
St. Louis Rams | 65.3 |
Atlanta Falcons | 65.1 |
Buffalo Bills | 65.0 |
New York Giants | 64.6 |
Green Bay Packers | 64.5 |
San Diego Chargers | 64.5 |
Miami Dolphins | 64.4 |
Dallas Cowboys | 64.3 |
San Francisco 49ers | 64.1 |
Philadelphia Eagles | 64.0 |
Carolina Panthers | 63.9 |
Cincinnati Bengals | 63.8 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 63.8 |
Chicago Bears | 63.5 |
Oakland Raiders | 62.5 |
Minnesota Vikings | 62.3 |
Denver Broncos | 62.2 |
Tennessee Titans | 62.2 |
New York Jets | 61.8 |
Houston Texans | 61.6 |
Detroit Lions | 61.0 |
Cleveland Browns | 60.1 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | 60.1 |
Indianapolis Colts | 59.8 |
Kansas City Chiefs | 59.5 |
Baltimore Ravens | 58.8 |
Pittsburgh Steelers | 55.9 |
Defensively, New Orleans has the easiest schedule, misery-wise for 2008, and Pittsburgh the toughest. That's fairly easy to see, based on their division schedules. Seven of New Orleans' 2008 opponents had Misery Indeces of 70 or higher in 2007, while Pittsburgh takes on eight of 16 teams with Misery Indeces of 50 or lower, including the league's best, New England and Indianapolis.
Now, does this mean you should rank the Saints' defense ahead of the Steelers' defense in 2008? Probably not. The most pseudo-accurate determination you could make from this list would be to say that, for example, if an average defense played the Saints' 2008 schedule against teams that performed exactly as they did in 2007, you might expect that team to pick up about 67 turnovers + sacks. That average team playing against Pittsburgh's 2007 opponents would get about 56 turnovers + sacks. Obviously, '08 teams are different from their '07 versions. Again, this has about as much relevance as strength of schedule. If New England had the toughest SOS in the league for 2008, would you still bet against them to go to the Super Bowl?
That said, it's interesting to note that four of last year's better defenses -- Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Indianapolis, and Jacksonville -- rate among the league's toughest five schedules. I've always thought you never want to be the first guy to draft a defense in fantasy football, and with these squads likely among the first off the board, that might be truer than ever this year. I'll wait a little while and take New England or Seattle, both of whom gave up fewer than 300 points in '07 and seem to have pretty easy SOS for 2008. And they may have the 21st best Misery SOS, but I'll still take the Vikings -- though I might not want to start them until week 3.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Miserable Offenses
I prefer to use the term to describe bad offenses, primarily the types you want to oppose with your fantasy football defense. We always drool over juicy matchups for our offensive players against bad defenses, but it doesn't seem like the same attention is given to defensive matchups against bad offenses. Since most leagues give bonus points to defenses for sacks and turnovers created, my Misery Index is simple: It's simply the sum of sacks and turnovers by an offense. Using that data, you can construct a kind of "strength-of-schedule" for your fantasy defense that should maximize its point totals.
Here are the Misery Indeces for 2007's offensive squads:
Team | Int. | Sacks | Misery |
Detroit Lions | 36 | 54 | 90 |
San Francisco 49ers | 34 | 55 | 89 |
Kansas City Chiefs | 33 | 55 | 88 |
St. Louis Rams | 37 | 48 | 85 |
Baltimore Ravens | 40 | 39 | 79 |
New York Jets | 25 | 53 | 78 |
Oakland Raiders | 37 | 41 | 78 |
Chicago Bears | 34 | 43 | 77 |
Philadelphia Eagles | 27 | 49 | 76 |
Atlanta Falcons | 24 | 47 | 71 |
Miami Dolphins | 29 | 42 | 71 |
Pittsburgh Steelers | 22 | 47 | 69 |
Minnesota Vikings | 30 | 38 | 68 |
Tennessee Titans | 34 | 30 | 64 |
Carolina Panthers | 29 | 33 | 62 |
New York Giants | 34 | 28 | 62 |
Denver Broncos | 29 | 32 | 61 |
Arizona Cardinals | 36 | 24 | 60 |
Houston Texans | 38 | 22 | 60 |
Seattle Seahawks | 24 | 36 | 60 |
Washington Redskins | 29 | 29 | 58 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 20 | 36 | 56 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | 21 | 31 | 52 |
Dallas Cowboys | 24 | 25 | 49 |
Cleveland Browns | 29 | 19 | 48 |
San Diego Chargers | 24 | 24 | 48 |
Buffalo Bills | 21 | 26 | 47 |
Cincinnati Bengals | 30 | 17 | 47 |
New Orleans Saints | 30 | 16 | 46 |
Green Bay Packers | 24 | 19 | 43 |
Indianapolis Colts | 19 | 23 | 42 |
New England Patriots | 15 | 21 | 36 |
No huge surprise there to see truly awful offensive teams San Francisco, Kansas City, and Baltimore near the top of the list. Detroit's Jon Kitna led the league in times sacked in 2007 and tied for the league lead in interceptions, while the Rams had to make do with Gus Frerotte longer than any NFL franchise should ever have to at this stage of his career. (Please stay healthy, Tarvaris Jackson.)
The other end of the spectrum includes what many could say were the five best quarterbacks in the NFL in 2007, save Tony Romo and Ben Roethlisberger. I don't have the numbers, but since QBs are responsible for nearly all interceptions, many of a team's fumbles, and play some part in taking sacks, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that good QBs minimize those errors and help keep the misery low.
So how does this chart help you pick a fantasy defense? For the first few weeks of the season, it probably doesn't help much at all. Defenses can change dramatically from year to year and, while quarterback play tends to be more steady, especially at the higher levels, a QB change can dramatically impact a team's Misery Index one way or the other. Aaron Rodgers will probably be OK (if he's the starter in Green Bay...), but I'd consider it unlikely that the Packers are #3 in lowest Misery in 2008.
It is, however, very helpful to look at the season's current Misery Index around week 8 or so and perhaps pick up an underperforming defense that has a stretch against two or three miserable offenses for the next few weeks. If you had the Seattle defense from weeks 10-14 last year (a stretch that included San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Arizona), you would have been rewarded with 14 turnovers and 18 sacks over that five-week span. I'll try to post semi-regular Misery Index updates throughout the 2008 season.
And what about the Vikings' outlook for 2008? With what looks to be one of the league's best defenses, they should rack up the sacks and turnovers as well as any team in the league -- but perhaps not that early. Here are the 2007 Misery Indeces of the teams on the Vikings' 2008 schedule, in order:
43, 42, 62, 64, 46, 90, 77, 60, 43, 56, 52, 77, 90, 60, 71, 62
That's an average of 62.2, compared to a league average of 63.1 -- slightly tougher than average. The first two games, against Green Bay and Indianapolis, figure to be tough, but, as mentioned, who knows how Aaron Rodgers might play? And now that Mike Martz is out of Detroit, it might be a little harder to sack Jon Kitna (the Lions accounting for the two 90s on the schedule). On the bright side, the average 2007 Misery Index for the team's final five opponents is 72, meaning that you should get strong performances from the defense late in the season and into your playoffs, which is when you need it the most.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Power rankings compilation, June edition
All rankings were issued from May 1 or later. So yes, they are taking Jared Allen and the draft into account. Here they are, in no particular order
AOL Sports John Schaefer says:
9. Minnesota will continue its upward trend and nose out the Pack in a tight NFC North race. The difference? The Vikings have the best player in the division -- Adrian Peterson.
You mean the best player in the division isn't Rex Grossman? (He ranks the Pack at #10.) My "boner" pick for him, though, is the Saints at #8. You know, the team that went 10-6 two years ago but OMG PRETTY OFFENSE. Yep, they're in the top 25% of NFL teams. Amazing what one slightly above-average year will do for your expectations.
ESPN.com says:
12. If they settle on a QB, the Vikes could become a playoff team. RB Adrian Peterson is at the top of the list for MVP candidates. (JW)
That prediction's turned in by James Walker; five guys in total handled ESPN.com's predictions, including Pat Yasinskas, who puts Seattle at #8. Yeah, I know, we've been predicting the downfall of the Seahawks for years, but nobody in the NFC West has stepped up. Me, I think winning a criminally weak division every year doesn't qualify you as the eighth-best team in the league.
CBS SportsLine's Pete Prisco says:
24. They have the makings of a deep playoff team with one exception: quarterback. Do you believe in Tarvaris Jackson?
Not really, but I believe in the rest of the team well enough not to put this team at #24. I mean, really? 24? Are you sure these aren't the 2007 pre-season rankings? That'd be enough to qualify as the ludicrous pick, but then he puts the Giants at #3. Yes, they won the Super Bowl, yes, they had some great games in the post-season. But they were only 10-6. They won their post-season games by an average of five points each. They're not going to do it again.
SportingNews.com's Vinnie Iyer says:
12. With that Fantastic Four on their defensive front and that Flash in their offensive backfield, watch out.
The D-line is the Fantastic Four? And here I thought Troy Williamson was The Thing, you know "hands of stone" and all. Apart from putting the Giants on top (ugh), Vinnie also has the Bills at #13, just below the Vikings. They were a nice story last year, but they were only second in their division by default.
SI.com's Peter King says:
7. I can hear you all out there saying, "Too soon." Well, here's my question: What year in recent NFL history hasn't a Green Bay (2007), New Orleans (2006), Chicago (2005) or Pittsburgh (2004) jumped from nowheresville to Super-Bowl contention?The Vikings do have a totally unproven passing game, but they still outscored Philly, Washington and Denver last year with the best running game in the league for about half the season. Minnesota had the biggest (by far) edge in average rushing margin per team last year, rushing for 5.3 yards a tote while surrendering 3.1 yards per carry. And though I don't love the Jared Allen signing for the long haul (too dangerous), I love it for 2008. Allen's quickness on the turf of the Metrodome ... scary. Maybe 20-sack scary.
"Too soon." Probably. I just wouldn't have the guts to put the Vikings this high, not quite yet. And as much as I'd like to see it, there's no way Jared Allen is getting 20 sacks. Meanwhile, he puts the Jets, who I don't see above the #20 spot on anyone else's list so far, at #14, just behind good ol' Buffalo at #13. AFC East: powerhouse division?
There are oodles of other power rankings out there -- just Google "power rankings 2008 NFL" (without quotes, of course) -- but I try to stick to the "professional" sources. And hey, if anyone ever wants to pay me to do this sort of thing, I'm all ears.And sadly, there's no Jason Cole to kick around just yet. That's almost as fun as the regular season itself.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Madden as Hell
Heh. Right.
The charts shown on Viking Age are a little different than the ones at Daily Norseman, though, with Jackson's overall rating being 78 instead of 79, and they do break down the rating a little better. In particular, Jackson's awareness is a ghastly 56, worst among the starting quarterbacks listed. His 78 throwing accuracy is also dead last. Among qualifying QBs in 2007, Jackson rated 26th in completion percentage and 30th in interception percentage (out of 33), so it's not hard to see where those numbers come from. It might be that Jackson's not the most "unaware" or inaccurate QB in the NFL, but he's in the discussion.
The Madden folks do give Jackson credit for his throwing power, rating him a 94, and his 86 speed trails only Vince Young. But then you get to the rookie quarterbacks. The top three quarterbacks taken in the draft -- Joe Flacco, Brian Brohm, and Matt Ryan -- all have higher overall ratings than Jackson, which sends the blogger into a tizzy. How could it be that a rookie QB could be better than a third-year man with lousy career numbers? Who on Earth would think that? The nerve.
Look, my point all along is not that I think Tarvaris Jackson is the next coming of Peyton Manning or that I'm accusing other fans of thinking that's the case. My point is that there is no reason -- none, zip, zilch, zero, nada -- to believe that he will get better at a rate any higher than any other third-year quarterback with his numbers, or even that he will get better at all. I pointed out a few posts ago how QBs with his stats in their second year tend to do in their third years: just over 2,000 yards, about 13 TDs, and 10 interceptions. Based on the fact that he's got the starting job practically won already, I think Jackson will improve slightly on those numbers, but not terribly so. 15 TDs, along with more TDs than interceptions, would make me more than happy. But it's just as likely that he'll have a drop-off-the-charts awful season. I hope he doesn't, but someone's got to be the worst QB in the league next year, and Jackson's as good a bet as any.
I also understand that, with the other offensive and defensive weapons the Vikings have, as well as its relatively weak division, Jackson doesn't have to put up big numbers for the team to succeed. But the sheer indignity that some fans have at the notion that Jackson might actually be very bad makes no sense. And some of the "logic" used to shore up some of those claims -- from not believing that there could be less experienced players out there who are better to his awesome 8-4 record as a starter in 2008 (Drew Brees went 7-9 as a starter last year -- would you rather have T-Jack at QB than him?) -- is mind-bogglingly frustrating and has little basis in actual likelihoods.
Is Tarvaris Jackson a good quarterback? There is zero evidence to support that this is true.
Could Tarvaris Jackson become a competent quarterback? It's possible, though I think fans are overestimating the impact of the relatively unproven Bernard Berrian and the maturing Sidney Rice. Toss in the fact that the O-line was likely playing a bit over its head in 2007 and Bryant McKinnie could still get suspended, and the improvements in the offense could be largely negated.
Can the Vikings win with Tarvaris Jackson at quarterback? 10 dollars says "yes."
Does Brad Childress really know that T-Jack isn't very good but never says a bad thing about him so as to both not damage his ego and to keep fans optimistic about the season? Quite possibly.
How many teams are "going to win the Super Bowl" in June? All of them. OK, maybe not Miami.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Vikings not left out in the cold in '08
To recap, here's the Vikings' schedule for 2008:
September:
@ Green Bay
Indianapolis
Carolina
@ Tennessee
October:
@ New Orleans
Detroit
@ Chicago
(bye)
November:
Houston
Green Bay
@ Tampa Bay
@ Jacksonville
Chicago
December:
@ Detroit
@ Arizona
Atlanta
New York Giants
That's quite the temperature-friendly road schedule. Green Bay and Chicago are the only cities with anything resembling a real winter. The Vikings travel to the not-so-frozen tundra right away in week one and travel to Chicago on October 19. After that, it's Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, and Arizona (and the domed Detroit) for November and December, and who in Minnesota wouldn't want to go to Florida or Arizona that time of year?
Last year, the Vikings faced three "potentially cold" road games (Nov-Dec) in Green Bay, New York, and Denver, and went 1-2 in those contests. In 2006, they went 0-2 and Chicago and Green Bay. The notion that the Vikings can't win in adverse weather is probably a bit of an exaggeration -- after all, remember that playoff game in Green Bay in January 2005? -- but it's still nice to see that the team can at least save on heaters for the bench this year.
(Cue the "Vikings are wimps" comments in 3...2...1...)
Monday, March 31, 2008
Vikings, Packers start Monday Night action in 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
2008 Minnesota Twins preview
You can point at the loss of Johan Santana as the death knell of the team's chances of playing in October, but even with him last year, the team only won 79 games. Without him, they'll certainly be worse, though not as much as most people seem to think. Every publication I've read has the Twins finishing no better than third in the division, with Detroit and Cleveland occupying the #1 and #2 spots. Some, however, rank the Twins much lower, and one I glanced at yesterday -- the Sporting News' pre-season publication, I think it was -- had the Twins in fifth, even though it was published before the Santana trade.
People fear change. And the general consensus among many is "change = bad." The Twins may or may not be a better team in 2008 than they were in 2007. They will definitely be a different team, given all their offseason changes. However, apart from the loss of Johan Santana and probably Torii Hunter, it's not as if any of the other changes were automatically for the worse.
With Francisco Liriano inexplicably made to toil away at AAA, the rotation consists of Livan Hernandez, Scott Baker, Kevin Slowey, Boof Bonser, and Nick Blackburn -- and your guess is as good as mine as to how this group, Liriano included, will perform. Hernandez is the only one with any kind of sustained track record. Unfortunately, it's not a very good one. His ERA has been a hair short of 5.00 the last two years, and that was without facing a DH regularly. If he's still in the rotation by the All-Star Break, I'll be surprised. Still, even that would be longer than Sidney Ponson and Ramon Ortiz lasted.
His other rotation-mates young and inexperienced, which, in many people's minds, means they won't be good. Never mind the fact that Baker and Slowey posted better ERAs than Hernandez last season (while facing a DH) and that Bonser was just a shade higher. Boof's lost weight, so they say, and there's no reason to believe that the lot of them can't at least post a bunch of ERAs in the 4-5 range. None of them are Johan Santana (though Slowey could be the next Brad Radke), but just because they're young doesn't mean they'll suck either. And if they do, there's Phil Humber and Kevin Mulvey waiting in the wings to replace them. With a strong bullpen, led by Joe Nathan and Pat Neshek, there's no reason to think the Twins will be any worse than any other team when it comes to pitching this year.
Then there's the lineup. Yes, Torii Hunter is gone. But can you say without a shadow of a doubt that Delmon Young won't have as good a year? It's a bit of a stretch, to be sure, but Hunter has, I think, been playing way over his head the last two years and is 10 years older than Young, in any case. Hunter hit 31 home runs last year to Young's 13; I think both players arriving in the 20-25 homer range for 2008 is realistic, and Young's 2007 OBP was only 18 points lower than Hunter's. If I had to bet for the 22-year-old to improve or the 32-year-old to decline...well, I'd pick both.
Then there's the (almost) totally new infield. I've always been a fan of Mike Lamb and thought he was criminally underutilized in Houston. He'll hit around .280 with 15 home runs. Adam Everett won't contribute much with the stick, but he's a Gold-Glove-caliber fielder. I actually think Brendan Harris was a first-half wonder in Tampa Bay last year -- he only hit .256/.316/.397 after the break last year -- and I worry that he'll be able to produce much on offense. Harris and Lamb are also not the greatest of defenders; hopefully Everett can make up for some of that. In any case, if the trade is Alexi Casilla/Jason Bartlett/Nick Punto for Lamb/Everett/Harris, I think I'll take the latter most any day.
Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Michael Cuddyer all return, with Jason Kubel and (ugh) Craig Monroe splitting DH duty. That, of course, leaves center field to be manned by the key player in the Santana deal, Carlos Gomez. Nobody doubts that he's fast, but can he get on base enough to justify his spot at the top of the order?
You'll hear the term ISOP (Isolated Power) bandied about a lot. Basically, it's slugging percentage minus batting average. A player with a .200 ISOP has more "power" than a player with a .100 ISOP, even if they might have the same slugging percentage. It's a far more accurate measure of power than SLG% alone Ichiro Suzuki has a career SLG% of .437. Rob Deer has a career SLG% of .442. Will you say that Deer (ISOP .222) is only a slightly better power hitter than Ichiro (ISOP .104)? He's a better hitter, overall, to be sure, but Deer is far more likely to hit a home run.
I like to look at something I call ISOBP (Isolated On-Base Percentage), which is simply on-base percentage minus batting average. It's a way of telling, in general, how good someone is at drawing a walk (or HBP), and, as ISOP removes batting average from figuring power, ISOBP removes batting average -- the ability to put the ball in play -- from OBP, which is often about not putting the ball in play. Even as batting average (and therefore OBP) can fluctuate throughout a player's career, ISOBP tends to stay fairly even.
In 2007, Gomez had an average of .232, an OBP of .288, and an ISOBP of .056. That's not great for a leadoff hitter, but it's not bad either, and he was only 21 years old. It's also roughly in line with his minor-league ISOBP of .058, meaning that Gomez will likely never have an ISOBP of better than about .060.
So, what's an acceptable OBP for a leadoff hitter? I'd say the conversation starts around .350. That means Gomez will need to bat about .290 to be a valuable player. Given his speed and extra-base power, I think that's a reasonable possibility, especially when you consider how young he is. He may not do it this year, but I think it's likely he'll make it into that range before too long. And if he doesn't ever fully develop, well, Deolis Guerra also came over in the Santana deal, and he's not even 19 years old yet and looking good.
I agree that Cleveland and Detroit will rule the division and that the best the Twins can hope for is a third-place finish. That said, I also think Kansas City is on the rise and could actually surpass the Twins. The White Sox? Too full of their own hubris (and old, injury-prone players) to be any good this year. I think the 3-4-5 positions will be pretty close -- and the Twins could be a force in 09-10, once the young players get a little experience -- but my final prediction for the Twins is:
75-87, 4th place