Also in case anyone’s interested, 538 runs an interesting predictions contest where you assign a probability to each game. A bit of a different twist to a pick 'em contest.
I like the Outsiders, have cited here to them frequently, but I have my doubts about some of their projections. I’ve seen their season projections before, and usually every team has 7-9 wins. (And the Pats are usually top 3 or so…)
I don’t know the NFC North very well. Maybe that’s an accurate representation of those teams’ relative power within the league?
I have big doubts about their optimistic projection for the Texans, and I wonder if the model runs were made before the Texans’s multiple trades? They have the Texans with a 4th ranked defense, at -6.0 DVOA. Last year, the Texans had a -7.1 Defense DVOA, good for 7th, and a weighted defense of -5.2, good for 10th. Both of those were buoyed by a best in League -30.1 Rush Defense DVOA. Problem is, their best run defender was Clowney (who might be the best run defender in the NFL), and he’s gone. Strange that their defense would improve in relative ranking after that. It’s one nit, but it gives me pause.
Bears undefeated seems ambitious. I don’t remember Omni saying anything of the sort this offseason.
The Bears should be very good. The roster is stacked and they only really lost one important player in the offseason and he was adequately replaced. If Trubisky is a top 7 QB and we’re healthy, we’re probably winning 12-13 games and getting a first round bye. Those are big ifs though.
Almost no one is predicting a Lions - Packers - Vikings - Bears finish. FO’s numbers here totally fly in the face of conventional wisdom and I can think of nothing that changed in the offseason that would indicate a complete collapse by the Bears and a meteoric rise from the Lions. It’s maybe possible that this division is tightly clustered due to differences in SOS and general NFC Norris gravity, but those mean wins are a bit nuts.
The DVOA is probably a bit more reflective of the general consensus with it being Packers - Bears - Lions - Vikings, but most people wouldn’t cluster them that close.
Here’s what FO’s own write up says.
Based on a return of to the mean in turnovers forced (from #1), a return to the mean in health (3rd fewest adjusted games lost), a tougher schedule and a … less than average offense. While the Bears were 9th in the league in points scored, their offense was 21st in yards, 20th in yards per play, 19th in scoring percentage. Their defense created 6 touchdowns and put the offense in the position to score a lot.
Personally, I don’t think they’ll lose 9 games, but they certainly aren’t going to win 12 again. I’ve bet the under on their win total (9.5), and, as always, we will see.
[quote=“Hamlet, post:1, topic:839590”]
[li]Remember when the debate was whether Marcus Mariota or Jameis Winston will be the next true franchise QB? Both will be gone from the teams that drafted them by the start of next year. Maybe they’ll go to the beach with Eli Manning and Joe Flacco, who too will be off the teams they’re currently on, and talk about how nice it is of teams to give them so much money for such mediocre play. [/li][/QUOTE]
Eli and Joe earned 3 rings between them, so it’s unlikely their respective teams begrudge them the money. Mariota and Winston are on a much lower tier than them. (Aren’t they both finishing up their rookie contracts this year? I can’t tell from googling.)
But yes, I do remember that debate between them all too well as Mariota continues to suck on my fantasy team.
Here’s a pretty good Bears/Packers preview. Despite coming from a Packer fan, it seems pretty balanced.
It kind of is a long standing tradition. Thursday openers began in 2002, and starting in 2004 the Superbowl champs have played in it every year except this year. The Ravens controversy was that they were the only Thursday opening champs who had to play on the road, but as you said, that was because of the Orioles.
I think with any prediction, you have to take injury out of the picture. Barring some “injury-prone” (a term I hate) player, most injuries are just freak accidents and are completely unpredictable. Pretty much every team out there could go from playoff-bound to top ten pick if they lose their QB early.
I was pointing out the things that went right for the Bears last year. They were very lucky to avoid even an average amount of injuries to their players. If that changes this year, even if only to return to the NFL average, it will influence their ability to win games.
In addition to agreeing with Hamlet’s point about how the Bears can’t expect to repeat being so unusually injury-free, not all injuries are completely random, either. There was something like a 4-year stretch where the Giants were the most injured team every year, either #1 with the most players on IR or in the top 3.
Looking back on it with the perspective of hindsight, my feeling is that the strength training coach was doing something wrong. (This was one of the possible explanations floated around at the time, and I’m not 100% positive but IIRC once the strength training coach was let go, the injuries reverted to league average-ish.)
Aaand the Raiders suspend Antonio Brown for an undisclosed length of time after having an argument with their GM.
That was certainly money (and draft picks) well spent. 
The guy’s an asshole, for sure, but this was not anything resembling a secret before they traded for him, so I’m putting this one on the Raiders.
Anyone want to guess what Matt Nagy is going to call for the Bears’ first offensive play?
Last year it was Papa Bear Left out of the T-Formation. During training camp, Nagy said that the team has no turds so I expect one of the trick plays this year to be called “No Turds.” Maybe the defense will come out in the 4-6 for their first play.
Something in the single-wing just to call back to the 100 years thing. I heard Jay Cutler is in attendance, maybe a pick-6 in his honor 
Playing devil’s advocate here, I’ll point out the 2013 Seahawks as an example. They were historically good that year, with the Legion of Boom at its peak and they absolutely destroyed the Broncos in the Super Bowl. Two things about that year… They had a huge turnover differential, at +20 and 39 total. Their 28 interceptions were 5 better than the #2 team (Buffalo if you can believe it). They also were extremely lucky with injuries, getting through the year without any major setbacks from key players. On both fronts they resembled the 2018 Bears.
You’d expect a regression, and there was one. Again, that defense in 2013 is listed among the best all-time so a regression is almost inevitable. Yet Seattle made the Super Bowl the next year and they were one interception away from back-to-back championships.
So again, there’s a recent example of a team being “lucky” with their defense and team overall, due to some fluke good numbers from chance as much as anything, and still being very good the following year.
Turns out, it was a fumble. Ugh. :smack:
The Pack starts the 100th anniversary season unable to achieve a first down against the Bears. Historical fact.
I would gloat, but I remember the first game last year.
Well, we’re seeing good defense so far. 
Here’s EAGLES fan hoping these two tie the first game. Hey, it’d make a cool 100th anniversary story. Maybe.
Oh man. Trubisky throws late across his body, and King drops an easy interception in Bears territory. In games against this defense, and with Rodgers looking so rattled, you need to make those plays. Huge opportunity blown.
Interesting first half. Bears defense is as good as advertised, looking totally dominant the first few drives, and good the rest of the half. But the Packers defense looked good too, which is a nice change of pace. That dropped interception was frustrating, but they’re tackling a ton better than last year.
Should be an interesting second half too.