Brandt: Most vulnerable 2015 division winners

[kearly]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... on-winners

Eighth is the least vulnerable, 1st is the most vulnerable to being over-taken. Brandt's list:

8. Redskins
7. Cardinals
6. Panthers
5. Patriots
4. Vikings
3. Texans
2. Broncos
1. Bengals

Here's how I'd rank them (least threatened to most):

8. Panthers. They will have a SB hangover year and will probably win only 10 or 11 games. A division rival might make it to 9-7 with some luck, but I don't see anyone but Carolina breaking double digits.

7. Patriots. Brady may use legal tactics to delay his appeal. Even if he doesn't, the early games are very winnable even with a backup QB. Buffalo isn't ready to compete with New England, and the Jets are a clip below the Pats. It's becoming a competitive division, but the Pats still have an edge barring a career collapse by Brady.

6. Texans. Houston is the safest bet in the NFL's worst division. The bigger question is, will they remember to show up for their home playoff game?

5. Cardinals. Arizona will have another 12+ win season in 2016 if Palmer stays healthy, but Seattle is currently favored by Vegas to win the division.

4. Bengals. Pittsburgh will probably win the division if Big Ben stays healthy. The Ravens could be a threat too.

3. Broncos. Rookie QB and Mark Sanchez vs. a Chiefs team that won 11 straight games in 2015. Denver's defense will not likely be historically good in back to back years.

2. Redskins. The Redskins are a flawed team that is heading in the right direction, but if Tony Romo is healthy they will be a distant second in the division.

1. Vikings. They were among the weaker teams to make the playoffs last year, and directly benefited from the Packers' injury plagued 2015 campaign. This time around the Packers have the easiest schedule in the league and are fully healthy with a slimmed down Eddie Lacy. The Vikings are going to get boat-raced.

 

[WilsonMVP]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000661070/article/broncos-texans-among-most-vulnerable-division-winners

Eighth is the least vulnerable, 1st is the most vulnerable to being over-taken. Brandt's list:

8. Redskins
7. Cardinals
6. Panthers
5. Patriots
4. Vikings
3. Texans
2. Broncos
1. Bengals

Here's how I'd rank them (least threatened to most):

8. Panthers. They will have a SB hangover year and will probably win only 10 or 11 games. A division rival might make it to 9-7 with some luck, but I don't see anyone but Carolina breaking double digits.

7. Patriots. Brady may use legal tactics to delay his appeal. Even if he doesn't, the early games are very winnable even with a backup QB. Buffalo isn't ready to compete with New England, and the Jets are a clip below the Pats. It's becoming a competitive division, but the Pats still have an edge barring a career collapse by Brady.

6. Texans. Houston is the safest bet in the NFL's worst division. The bigger question is, will they remember to show up for their home playoff game?

5. Cardinals. Arizona will have another 12+ win season in 2016 if Palmer stays healthy, but Seattle is currently favored by Vegas to win the division.

4. Bengals. Pittsburgh will probably win the division if Big Ben stays healthy. The Ravens could be a threat too.

3. Broncos. Rookie QB and Mark Sanchez vs. a Chiefs team that won 11 straight games in 2015. Denver's defense will not likely be historically good in back to back years.

2. Redskins. The Redskins are a flawed team that is heading in the right direction, but if Tony Romo is healthy they will be a distant second in the division.

1. Vikings. They were among the weaker teams to make the playoffs last year, and directly benefited from the Packers' injury plagued 2015 campaign. This time around the Packers have the easiest schedule in the league and are fully healthy with a slimmed down Eddie Lacy. The Vikings are going to get boat-raced.

The Vikings were so weak last year, if not for a miracle RW play and a missed chipped FG they would of beaten the Seahawks in the playoffs. When healthy that defense is almost as good as the Seahawks D. 3 of their 5 losses came in weeks 11-14 when they had all those injuries. I mean they were top 5 in points allowed and had the NFL leading rusher so they cant be that weak. They did win 11 games and dethroned the Packers.

 

[rideaducati]

I would have Gil's list almost completely backwards.

 

[kearly]

The Vikings were so weak last year, if not for a miracle RW play and a missed chipped FG they would of beaten the Seahawks in the playoffs. When healthy that defense is almost as good as the Seahawks D. 3 of their 5 losses came in weeks 11-14 when they had all those injuries. I mean they were top 5 in points allowed and had the NFL leading rusher so they cant be that weak. They did win 11 games and dethroned the Packers.

The playoff game was not only a 10am start, but one of the coldest games in NFL history. Neither team looked like themselves in that game. Minnesota had just 131 yards of total offense prior to their last minute drive, a drive that was made possible by a horrific pass interference call on Kam Chancellor.

Mike Zimmer admitted that his team wasn't as good as their record during the season. They only had two wins against teams with winning records last year, against the Chiefs when the Chiefs were 1-5, and against the Packers in week 17 when the Packers were a dumpster fire.

Their defense will probably be better if healthier in 2016, but that defense ranked just 14th in DVOA last season. On the other side, they have a better version of Brian Hoyer at QB and a 31 year old RB as the engine of their offense. The one thing in their favor is a very easy 2016 schedule, but Green Bay's schedule is even easier. I think Green Bay leaves them in the dust by midseason. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[WilsonMVP]

The Vikings were so weak last year, if not for a miracle RW play and a missed chipped FG they would of beaten the Seahawks in the playoffs. When healthy that defense is almost as good as the Seahawks D. 3 of their 5 losses came in weeks 11-14 when they had all those injuries. I mean they were top 5 in points allowed and had the NFL leading rusher so they cant be that weak. They did win 11 games and dethroned the Packers.

The playoff game was not only a 10am start, but one of the coldest games in NFL history. Neither team looked like themselves in that game. Minnesota had just 131 yards of total offense prior to their last minute drive, a drive that was made possible by a horrific pass interference call on Kam Chancellor.

Mike Zimmer admitted that his team wasn't as good as their record during the season. They only had two wins against teams with winning records last year, against the Chiefs when the Chiefs were 1-5, and against the Packers in week 17 when the Packers were a dumpster fire.

Their defense will probably be better if healthier in 2016, but that defense ranked just 14th in DVOA last season. On the other side, they have a better version of Brian Hoyer at QB and a 31 year old RB as the engine of their offense. The one thing in their favor is a very easy 2016 schedule, but Green Bay's schedule is even easier. I think Green Bay leaves them in the dust by midseason. I hope I'm wrong.

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy. Outside of the botched snap miracle play by RW and Tyler he was barely above 100 yards. Both offenses sucked but at least the Vikings managed to do SOMETHING outside of the 4th quarter haha. It was only because of the botched snap miracle play(amazing play by Wilson) and the defense forcing a Peterson fumble that the seahawks offense scored any points at all.

As far as the Viking offense goes. It wasnt pretty but as a team their points per game was about middle of the road and almost dead equal to the Packers i believe. AP is still AP and was fighting injuries towards the end of the season along with an Oline that might be even worse than what the Seahawks had. I mean we all watched how bad the Oline was when the Seahawks creamed the Vikings in the regular season. AP couldnt go anywhere because he was being hit at or behind the LOS almost every snap he took.

With having a few starters that were out the whole year and some free agent pickups I expect the OL to be better than last year which was pretty much the downfall of that offense. When they went to a more fast paced shorter route offense they did really well actually, sound familiar? Unlike Wilson though, Bridgewater is pretty mediocre on the deep ball when he actually had time to throw one, but on 20 or less yard routes he was pretty damn effecient.

As far as Bridgewater goes he is the same age NOW that Wilson was when he got drafted so hes still a pretty young QB and over the past 2 years has been the most pressured QB in the entire NFL. I remember seeing a tweet from PFF saying Bridgewater was pressured on like 47% of dropbacks last season which was number 1 in the league yet in the past 2 years he has also been one of the most accurate under pressure. When you are a QB in a vertical passing game and your line gives up pressure almost half the snaps what do you think will happen to that QB? They started the season with the backup Center and RT so that didnt help any on the pressure front.

Vikings are built just like the Seahawks in that the team is built around an ELITE D and Running game. Wilson is just on another level so the offense isnt as bad as it could be.

I dont know why everyone just loves to board the packer express train. Shit, even ESPN claimed the Packers won the division last year, did anyone see that? Is having a 31 1/2 year old Jordy Nelson coming off an ACL going to suddenly fix all of the Packers problems? They lost Raji who is taking a year off which is HUGE. The Packers record was really 9-7 because I dont count the Detroit WIN as it was a LOSS since that was not a penalty and the game was over and Rodgers failed but the refs decided to give him another chance and the lions couged it.

I actually wont be all that shocked if its Vikings vs Seahawks to go to the superbowl next year

 

[HawkGA]

I would have Gil's list almost completely backwards.

Yep. Looking at the Division winners from last year it's wild to think how many of them I expect to not win the division this year. In fact, I don't think there's a team on thereI would put money on as being a repeat champ (probably the Patriots, even with a 4 game suspension, they AFC East still blows enough that they should win). That said, the Redskins least likely? Seriously? That's messed up.

 

[Sterling Archer]

I dont know why everyone just loves to board the packer express train. Shit, even ESPN claimed the Packers won the division last year, did anyone see that? Is having a 31 1/2 year old Jordy Nelson coming off an ACL going to suddenly fix all of the Packers problems? They lost Raji who is taking a year off which is HUGE. The Packers record was really 9-7 because I dont count the Detroit WIN as it was a LOSS since that was not a penalty and the game was over and Rodgers failed but the refs decided to give him another chance and the lions couged it.

I actually wont be all that shocked if its Vikings vs Seahawks to go to the superbowl next year

You can't change wins to losses just because it fits your narrative. If you do that then Seattle according to everyone would not have won the Detroit game either because of that dumb penalty. About half the games played have controversial decisions that ultimately affect the outcome.

I actually like Minnesota and believe they're a team on the rise. Mostly due to the defense. I liked Bridgewater coming out and thought he was the most polished QB that year, but he has failed to impress me much since then. I feel like he hasn't taken over a game or willed that team to victory, so at this point I place him as squarely average. Not to say he's been bad, because he hasn't, but he doesn't look like a pro-bowler yet to me either. Hopefully this is the year he starts making those jumps. History tells us that Peterson is going to fall off a cliff at any point, although the year off mid career has helped him obviously.

Green Bay IMO is a superior team right now. Kenny Clark will replace Raji and could easily outperform him. Their defense is missing a few key spots, but all they need is for it to be average with Rodgers. I think Nelson will help them this year which is all we're talking about. ACLs are not the harbinger of doom that they used to be.

 

[kearly]

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy.

Both teams were too frozen to do anything on offense that game, that's why I think it shouldn't be used as a basis of analysis. But yes, in that frozen ass game where Minnesota had a considerable advantage, Seattle still outperformed them. A few weeks prior, with no such advantage, Minnesota got blown out.

With regards to BJ Raji. The guy had a good rookie season, but has been a mixed bag since. The Packers replaced him with with a 1st round pick DT who, according to hints from Pat Kirwan, was the player Seattle was initially targeting at #31. Given that Raji had been struggling in recent years, it's very possible that DT was upgraded, not downgraded.

It's possible that Green Bay might suffer another injury plagued year and disappoint, but even if they do, I wouldn't sleep on Detroit's chances to contend. If not for a phantom facemask call on Aaron Rodgers, they would have finished the second half of last season at 7-1. Stafford is still searching for consistency, but when he's on his game he's a much better QB than Bridgewater. Stafford seemed to have put things together late last year, if that continues Detroit could emerge as one of the surprise teams of 2016.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

5. Cardinals. Arizona will have another 12+ win season in 2016 if Palmer stays healthy, but Seattle is currently favored by Vegas to win the division..

Cards look tough man, they had a great draft, especially on D. So IMO it's gonna be a dog fight all the way til the end.

If we can somehow get the stupid Ram monkey off our back and quit losing 1-2 division games to those jokers, then I think we take it with 12-13 wins. But if the Ram futility continues? Then the Cards come out on top and we're again fighting for a Wild Card.

 

[kearly]

You can't change wins to losses just because it fits your narrative. If you do that then Seattle according to everyone would not have won the Detroit game either because of that dumb penalty. About half the games played have controversial decisions that ultimately affect the outcome.

Well, it is a little different. If the batted ball had been called, Seattle still had an 18% chance to win according to the win probability charts. If the Phantom facemask had not been called, then Green Bay would have had a 0% chance to win because the game would have been over. Also, the batted ball decision was semi-understandable since the rule allows for it to be a judgement call from the official if the momentum of the ball is heading out of bounds, which it was, whereas the facemask call was an egregious mistake.

Specifics aside, I am generally okay with factoring luck into analysis. Yes, luck is a part of the game, but luck isn't a part of performance, so it's worth mentioning luck in an attempt to gain a more accurate determination of performance. Detroit had some lucky wins too, but nothing quite as unlucky as those two losses, so I would say they were hurt by luck last season.

With regard to Bridgewater, I think he will benefit from a move to the spread just like Wilson did, but I don't see that type of change happening any time soon. Until then, he's arguably the league's least dangerous starting QB.

Minnesota's defense isn't as good statistically as its hype, but I do like Zimmer. He's quietly one of the smarter head coaches. That said, if AP falls off a career cliff, the Vikings are going to be in big, big trouble.

 

[kearly]

Cards look tough man, they had a great draft, especially on D. So IMO it's gonna be a dog fight all the way til the end.

I thought their draft sucked. They killed it in FA though, just like they usually do.

 

[Popeyejones]

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy.

Both teams were too frozen to do anything on offense that game, that's why I think it shouldn't be used as a basis of analysis.

Two years before in an even colder playoff game Kraperdick had more than twice as many yards as Wilson and a 15 point higher QB rating (4x higher if QBR), and he friggin sucks. Wilson played poorly. It happens. End of story.

 

[Popeyejones]

You can't change wins to losses just because it fits your narrative. If you do that then Seattle according to everyone would not have won the Detroit game either because of that dumb penalty. About half the games played have controversial decisions that ultimately affect the outcome.

Well, it is a little different. If the batted ball had been called, Seattle still had an 18% chance to win according to the win probability charts. .

Win probability shifted by 70% on that single blown call. As Bill Barnwell noted at the time, it was the biggest shift in win probability on a blown call in several seasons: since the fail marry.

 

[Sterling Archer]

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy.

Both teams were too frozen to do anything on offense that game, that's why I think it shouldn't be used as a basis of analysis.

Two years before in an even colder playoff game Kraperdick had more than twice as many yards as Wilson and a 15 point higher QB rating (4x higher if QBR), and he friggin sucks. Wilson played poorly. It happens. End of story.

GB had the 24th ranked scoring defense that year vs. Minnesota's 5th ranked in 2015. Just a small difference... and that's not including the gimme pick 6 that the GB DB dropped that went right into his hands at the end of the game which would have plummeted Kaepernick's rating. Sorry to throw reality into your BS narrative though.

 

[Maulbert]

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy.

Both teams were too frozen to do anything on offense that game, that's why I think it shouldn't be used as a basis of analysis.

Two years before in an even colder playoff game Kraperdick had more than twice as many yards as Wilson and a 15 point higher QB rating (4x higher if QBR), and he friggin sucks. Wilson played poorly. It happens. End of story.

What's that you're lying?

49ers at Packers:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201401050gnb.htm

Seahawks at Vikings:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201601100min.htm

Hmm. 5 degrees, -10 wind chill vs. -6 degrees, -25 wind chill.

So, are you admitting that you'll baldface lie to win an argument?

 

[Popeyejones]

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy.

Both teams were too frozen to do anything on offense that game, that's why I think it shouldn't be used as a basis of analysis.

Two years before in an even colder playoff game Kraperdick had more than twice as many yards as Wilson and a 15 point higher QB rating (4x higher if QBR), and he friggin sucks. Wilson played poorly. It happens. End of story.

GB had the 24th ranked scoring defense that year vs. Minnesota's 5th ranked in 2015. Just a small difference... and that's not including the gimme pick 6 that the GB DB dropped that went right into his hands at the end of the game which would have plummeted Kaepernick's rating. Sorry to throw reality into your BS narrative though.

Of course that matters. Put Kearly's argument is that Wilson's bad game doesn't count because it was too cold, not because he can't play well against good defenses. If you want to make that argument have at it, but it's not one I would make (as Wilson is a really good QB, and just had a bad day).

and that's not including the gimme pick 6 that the GB DB dropped that went right into his hands at the end of the game which would have plummeted Kaepernick's rating. Sorry to throw reality into your BS narrative though

You don't include that thing that didn't happen for the exact same reason that you don't reduce Wilson's yardage by 25% because he stumbled into botched snap glory that would only happen 1 time out of 100.

To do either of those things is homer nonsense in order to justify pressing your finger down on the scale.

 

[Popeyejones]

And what did the Seahawk offense have? Wilson didnt play that great either over Teddy.

Both teams were too frozen to do anything on offense that game, that's why I think it shouldn't be used as a basis of analysis.

Two years before in an even colder playoff game Kraperdick had more than twice as many yards as Wilson and a 15 point higher QB rating (4x higher if QBR), and he friggin sucks. Wilson played poorly. It happens. End of story.

What's that you're lying?

49ers at Packers:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201401050gnb.htm

Seahawks at Vikings:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201601100min.htm

Hmm. 5 degrees, -10 wind chill vs. -6 degrees, -25 wind chill.

So, are you admitting that you'll baldface lie to win an argument?

Ah okay, Thanks for the links. Point taken. :th2thumbs:

I'll ammend:

Two years before in another really cold game a really crappy QB had over twice as many yards as Wilson and was significantly better than him by both QB measures too. Wilson played poorly. It happens.

I'll take it one step further too:

A QB who sh!ts the bed if its cold out, or it was raining earlier that week, or any other number of excuses, isn't a very good QB. I don't think we should use these types of excuses to try erase Wilson playing poorly sometimes because I think he is a very good QB. I don't think he needs nonsense excuses. Like every other good QB, he just has a few bad games to go with his usually good games and sometimes great games. End of story.

 

[Sterling Archer]

[

Of course that matters. Put Kearly's argument is that Wilson's bad game doesn't count because it was too cold, not because he can't play well against good defenses. If you want to make that argument have at it, but it's not one I would make (as Wilson is a really good QB, and just had a bad day).

My point is that you can't compare Kap and Wilson's days because they were in much different circumstances.

 

[rideaducati]

[

Of course that matters. Put Kearly's argument is that Wilson's bad game doesn't count because it was too cold, not because he can't play well against good defenses. If you want to make that argument have at it, but it's not one I would make (as Wilson is a really good QB, and just had a bad day).

My point is that you can't compare Kap and Wilson's days because they were in much different circumstances.

I don't think Popeye even knows what the hell he is arguing. That, or he doesn't understand that there are actually circumstances and reasons why a QB would have a bad game. He sees things as excuses while we see the same things as explanations. He's just being difficult.

 

[Popeyejones]

[

Of course that matters. Put Kearly's argument is that Wilson's bad game doesn't count because it was too cold, not because he can't play well against good defenses. If you want to make that argument have at it, but it's not one I would make (as Wilson is a really good QB, and just had a bad day).

My point is that you can't compare Kap and Wilson's days because they were in much different circumstances.

Of course there were different circumstances.

One of the different circumstances is that the Vikings defense was better than the Packers defense.

Another different circumstance is that Wilson is a much, much better QB than Kaepernick.

One of the similar circumstances though is that they were both playing first round wild card games in the freezing cold.

If the claim is that Wilson poor game shouldn't count because it was really cold out (which WAS the claim), then that claim can be debunked through comparison.

Not trying to be annoying, but this really doesn't strike me as that complicated.