NFL: 2019 W/L Over Unders are out

[ChrisMWilliams]

Thought I'd post this as I'm fascinated by this stuff.

My team, the Vikings at 9.

Patriots at the top.

https://www.thelines.com/nfl-win-totals-2019/

 

[somecyguy]

One of these years, I'm going to give up on the Vikings. Stocked with talent on the defensive side, while giving thoughts and prayers to the offensive line year after year.

 

[JP4CY]

Ones that stick out to me:
Over on the Rams at 10.5
Over on the Bears at 9.5
Under the Steelers at 9
Under the Niners at 8
Under the Jets at 7

 

[Sigmapolis]

One of these years, I'm going to give up on the Vikings. Stocked with talent on the defensive side, while giving thoughts and prayers to the offensive line year after year.

That is what the hard salary cap, reverse draft, and free agency do to you.

Every team is strong somewhere and weak somewhere else.

"Competitiveness" means teams that are equally matched/mediocre/close to one another.

 

[RonBurgundy]

Interesting that they released O/U when the official schedule won't come out for a couple of weeks. Teams know who they play, but not when. That can have an impact. I'll wait to see schedule before making any assessments of good bets.

 

[jbindm]

Interesting that they released O/U when the official schedule won't come out for a couple of weeks. Teams know who they play, but not when. That can have an impact. I'll wait to see schedule before making any assessments of good bets.

And the draft.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

Cleveland and Green Bay both at 9. I'm betting it's been awhile since you could say that.

 

[IlliniCy]

Cleveland and Green Bay both at 9. I'm betting it's been awhile since you could say that.

Over for Cleveland
Under for Green Bay

 

[somecyguy]

That is what the hard salary cap, reverse draft, and free agency do to you.

Every team is strong somewhere and weak somewhere else.

"Competitiveness" means teams that are equally matched/mediocre/close to one another.

I understand how the NFL works. My frustration is coach Zimmer getting a woody for every defensive player at the direct expensive of his offensive line for multiple years, yet continuing to do the same thing. Something about the definition of insanity....

 

[Sigmapolis]

I understand how the NFL works. My frustration is coach Zimmer getting a woody for every defensive player at the direct expensive of his offensive line for multiple years, yet continuing to do the same thing. Something about the definition of insanity....

I see it more as an interesting experiment in football and economic philosophy.

You have very scarce resources towards building a roster. Where do you put them?

Offense? Defense? Lines? Backs? Being "okay" in every positional group? Being strong one place, and therefore being by necessity weak somewhere else on the roster?

What the heck do you do about the quarterback position?

You are right about the results so far, of course.

 

[jbindm]

I see it more as an interesting experiment in football and economic philosophy.

You have very scarce resources towards building a roster. Where do you put them?

Offense? Defense? Lines? Backs? Being "okay" in every positional group? Being strong one place, and therefore being by necessity weak somewhere else on the roster?

What the heck do you do about the quarterback position?

You are right about the results so far, of course.

I think we're about to see some interesting QB decisions in the near future as far as roster construction goes. The Rams with Jared Goff and the Titans with Marcus Mariota and eventually the Bears with Mitch Trubisky - they've all shown flashes but haven't established themselves as true franchise QBs who can elevate the team. Once these guys are done with their rookie deals I wonder what their teams will do. Commit massive money to a QB they aren't totally sold on or draft another QB and allocate that cap space to other areas of the roster?

 

[jbindm]

Over for Cleveland
Under for Green Bay

We'll see. I'm not entirely sold on the Browns quite yet. Lots of talent on the roster now but also kind of volatile. And a rookie head coach trying to figure things out on the fly. I wouldn't be all that surprised if they disappointed a lot of bandwagon jumpers.

 

[ZZZ]

I think we're about to see some interesting QB decisions in the near future as far as roster construction goes. The Rams with Jared Goff and the Titans with Marcus Mariota and eventually the Bears with Mitch Trubisky - they've all shown flashes but haven't established themselves as true franchise QBs who can elevate the team. Once these guys are done with their rookie deals I wonder what their teams will do. Commit massive money to a QB they aren't totally sold on or draft another QB and allocate that cap space to other areas of the roster?

It might just be a bi-product of having a talented roster overall and McVay as your head coach, but the Rams have to be satisfied with Goff so far.

 

[TheJackWePack5]

Chiefs fan here, and I’ll take the under.

Losses of Hunt and (probably Hill) are huge, and the defense is going to likely be a sieve with what they lost.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I think we're about to see some interesting QB decisions in the near future as far as roster construction goes. The Rams with Jared Goff and the Titans with Marcus Mariota and eventually the Bears with Mitch Trubisky - they've all shown flashes but haven't established themselves as true franchise QBs who can elevate the team. Once these guys are done with their rookie deals I wonder what their teams will do. Commit massive money to a QB they aren't totally sold on or draft another QB and allocate that cap space to other areas of the roster?

I am waiting for a team to have the stones to move on from one of those young guys who might be the vaunted "franchise quarterback" and do something like...

-- flip Mr. Would-Be Franchise for draft capital, talent, or cap space
-- draft another young gun on an absurdly cheap rookie deal
-- use the resources gained, especially the $20-30 million in cap space, on the rest of the team, and trust in their coaching staff and the rest of the team to kick butt
-- get just enough out of the new guy to be competitive, if not more

The two best "species" of teams in the NFL right now are teams that either (1.) have a true, indisputable franchise quarterback who can basically win games on his own and (2.) teams that have that young quarterback on a cheap rookie deal generating absurd value for the team, meanwhile, they use the "hole" in their cap to strengthen the rest of the roster.

If you are not sure you have #1, and not absolutely sure -- being wrong about this can set you back for years, and probably gets a coach and a GM fired -- then why not commit yourself to running the whole idea underlying #2 back again? Seattle had that super-team that beat Denver in the Super Bowl mostly because they took the money that was not going to a young Russell Wilson and put it into their defense. The Rams almost had enough to take down Brady by doing the exact same thing. Why not adopt that as a philosophy wholesale?

 

[jbindm]

I am waiting for a team to have the stones to move on from one of those young guys who might be the vaunted "franchise quarterback" and do something like...

-- flip Mr. Would-Be Franchise for draft capital, talent, or cap space
-- draft another young gun on an absurdly cheap rookie deal
-- use the resources gained, especially the $20-30 million in cap space, on the rest of the team, and trust in their coaching staff and the rest of the team to kick butt
-- get just enough out of the new guy to be competitive, if not more

The two best "species" of teams in the NFL right now are teams that either (1.) have a true, indisputable franchise quarterback who can basically win games on his own and (2.) teams that have that young quarterback on a cheap rookie deal generating absurd value for the team, meanwhile, they use the "hole" in their cap to strengthen the rest of the roster.

If you are not sure you have #1, and not absolutely sure -- being wrong about this can set you back for years, and probably gets a coach and a GM fired -- then why not commit yourself to running the whole idea underlying #2 back again? Seattle had that super-team that beat Denver in the Super Bowl mostly because they took the money that was not going to a young Russell Wilson and put it into their defense. The Rams almost had enough to take down Brady by doing the exact same thing. Why not adopt that as a philosophy wholesale?

I think it's going to happen sooner than later. It's better than hitching your wagon to Andy Dalton or Ryan Tannehill for 20 million a year. Get similar production out of another QB for a fraction of the cost.

 

[jbindm]

It might just be a bi-product of having a talented roster overall and McVay as your head coach, but the Rams have to be satisfied with Goff so far.

Maybe, but would they be as satisfied if they're paying him over 25 mil per year? Right now he's a bargain as a decent QB on a team-friendly deal, but pretty soon they're going to have to decide between paying him like a top tier QB or moving on from him and drafting another QB.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I think it's going to happen sooner than later. It's better than hitching your wagon to Andy Dalton or Ryan Tannehill for 20 million a year. Get similar production out of another QB for a fraction of the cost.

I agree with this, but team-building in the NFL for the past 10 years (or even the past 20 years, since Peyton Manning or the 2004 quarterback class) has been so manically focused on finding that unicorn Franchise Quarterback that it is hard to wander away from the flock. Not without good reason, too -- if you find that Manning, Brady, Brees, or Rodgers, you are going to be at least minimally competitive, if not competing for championships every single year, for quite a long time in this league. The upsides are absolutely huge if you hit on 0 or 00.

The want for that has made teams stretch, however. You just worry that a guy might finally develop on you, for somebody else, and boy would your face be red if you let a young hotshot quarterback like Goff go and he just kills it for his second team. You also look at teams with nothing going at the quarterback position, like the Browns for the past 20 years, and stare into an oblivion. Sometimes you have to accept that mediocrity considering the downsides, even if overpaying for a middling starter is a terrible value proposition -- maybe the worst in sports.

Paying a rookie or a journeyman veteran who can give you 90% the production of the 15th starter in the league for 10% the cost is going to look awfully attractive to somebody at some point, especially if they trust their offensive coaching staff to coach a guy up and/or salivate at what you can do with the defense and supporting cast with the money.

Bill Barnwell wrote a fascinating piece about this theory...

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...e-young-qb-starters-thrive-bill-barnwell-2018

There are basically two ways to win the league...

(1.) Have a Brady
(2.) Have a cheap QB and use this money to build the team

If you are at the crossroads, where #2 is about to expire yet you do not have #1, why not just restart the cycle and hope you can go into #2 again? There is no #3.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Chiefs fan here, and I’ll take the under.

Losses of Hunt and (probably Hill) are huge, and the defense is going to likely be a sieve with what they lost.

Hunt won't hurt that bad, but it would be nice to have him. Hill doesn't look like he is part of the investigation, so I don't see why he would be gone. His name isn't on the investigation.

Defensively, they lost pass rushers. Ford had 1 good year and wasn't good against the run. Houston was aging and they needed to get younger. They werent good before, so not sure they can get worse. They need to stop the run, and it seems that what they are moving towards. Honey Badger will help, and they have the ability to make a few moves in the draft to move up to get more secondary help and an edge rusher.

We'll see. I think the offense hums along and if the defense gets even a tad bit better, they are looking at around 11 wins.

 

[EnkAMania]

Chargers at 10, yippee!