Hey, it could happen!

[Chad711]

Tough loss there, Rodgers is really gonna have to put up sick numbers now... He should call up that Favre guy and see if he has any pointers for him.

[LMITOUT]

It looks like Rodgers is holding his own this season, as he did last. His numbers are probably even more impressive this year considering the lack of an offensive line to protect him.

[james_walleye]

Here's the teams the vikings have beat and their records:

Cleveland 1-9

Detroit 2-8

San Fransisco 4-6

Green Bay 6-4

St. Louis 1-9

Baltimore 5-5

Green Bay 6-4

Detroit 2-8

Seattle 3-7

--------------------

Total 30-60

The combined record of the teams the saints have played is 35-55, also with 2 wins over teams with over a .500 record. Funny you forgot to mention that.....

[LMITOUT]

also with 2 wins over teams with over a .500 record.

....and Saints record is????

I'm guessing the Vikings moral victory over the Steelers isn't feeling as good now since they were beat by the lowly Chiefs yesterday.

[james_walleye]

Originally Posted By: james_walleye

also with 2 wins over teams with over a .500 record.

....and Saints record is????

I'm guessing the Vikings moral victory over the Steelers isn't feeling as good now since they were beat by the lowly Chiefs yesterday.

Hate to break it to ya genius, but you arent going to find any teams with 5 or 6 wins over teams with over .500 records. Indy has 4, Cinncy 3.....in case you didnt know thats the NFL.

[LMITOUT]

Hate to break it to you, but the Vike's opponents were 34-56 after nine weeks in 1998, and we all know how that turned out after playing cupcakes all season.

[fishersofmen]

Blah, Blah....Any given Sunday. Thats what makes this league the best there is and our club is 9-1 and playing great. Thats all that matters.

[zamboni]

Hate to break it to you, but the Vike's opponents were 34-56 after nine weeks in 1998, and we all know how that turned out after playing cupcakes all season.

What does 1998's schedule have anything to do with 2009's?

[zamboni]

It looks like Rodgers is holding his own this season, as he did last. His numbers are probably even more impressive this year considering the lack of an offensive line to protect him.

He IS holding his own, AND the football too long. If the guy is such a genius, maybe he should throw it out of bounds instead of taking 6 sacks a game. The sack problem in GB is just as much on him as it is the line.

[LMITOUT]

Originally Posted By: LMITOUT

Hate to break it to you, but the Vike's opponents were 34-56 after nine weeks in 1998, and we all know how that turned out after playing cupcakes all season.

What does 1998's schedule have anything to do with 2009's?

ever hear the saying about history repeating itself?

[Surface Tension]

"Hey, it could happen!" Yes it could happen.

It sucks to have a season where one needs to say that though.

Coarse as a Vikes fan I've thought that more then once.

Not this year however. We have dominated so far and I hope that continues. Really we get better as the year goes on and that is what makes a true, well I won't say it. Don't like the talk of what could be.

We have(Vikes not Packers)all the makings for a SB team.

Really Packers the most you could hope for it to get lucky and knock out a team way, way, more deserving then you.

Is Bret seeking a SB title where he didn't "win it all" with a mediocre team like GB.

[Steve Foss]

Really Packers the most you could hope for it to get lucky and knock out a team way, way, more deserving then you.

If we make the playoffs and beat a team with a better record, the loser by definition will not be a more deserving team. That's why we play the games, and once you make the playoffs it's a whole new season.

As for the rest of what you said, I agree.

[james_walleye]

Hate to break it to you, but the Vike's opponents were 34-56 after nine weeks in 1998, and we all know how that turned out after playing cupcakes all season.

Please find me a team with 7, 8, 10 wins, who has played a schedule in which they have beaten 4 or 5 teams over .500.

Every team out there with 7 wins, 8 wins, 10 wins, they all have 2 or 3 wins over teams with over .500 records. Quit pretending like the vikings are the only team to do this. They are right in line with every other top notch team.

[LMITOUT]

The difference is that the "top caliber" teams have proven themselves in previous years with essentially the same personnel or key players. This is the first act of the Viking circus featuring #4 and nobody knows for sure what this team is capable of and they haven't proven anything yet against the teams they've played thus far.

Indy has had Manning, Wayne, Clark, Addai...Patriots have Brady, Moss, and others, Steelers have Big Ben, Ward, etc. Etc, etc, etc. You know what to expect from these types of teams that have had a pretty solid rotation of players over the past couple of years and are almost a sure bet to handle business when business starts picking up.

Vikings...not so much, or at least so far. Too many unknowns to push all-in just yet.

[james_walleye]

Why don't you take a look at some of the teams that have played in the superbowl the last couple years and tell me how "proven" they were. I'm not putting the vikings in the superbowl, im not picking them to win it, but if you are going to sit and tell me this team can't make a superbowl run because of their schedule they've played then your delirious. Anyone other than a viking hater will tell you this team has what it takes to make a serious run. Any NFL fan would tell you this, not just a viking fan. Tell me whos going to make the superbowl in the NFC? The 2 best teams as of right now are "unproven". You going to tell me you'd put your $$ on the giants because they won the superbowl 2 years ago? Please....if being proven was the key to getting to a superbowl then why did the giants, the defending champs, get knocked down in their 1st game and why were the cardinals representing the NFC. And how did the giants even win the superbowl 2 years ago against the mighty and proven Tom Brady...?

[LMITOUT]

Alright, I didn't want to break out this little chart to crush your little heart, but here it is. (Updated prior to week #11).

Enjoy!

The GWP is the probability a team would beat the league average team at a neutral site. Each team's opponent's average GWP is also listed, which can be considered to-date strength of schedule, and all ratings include adjustments for opponent strength.

GWP is based on a logistic regression model applied to current team stats. The model includes offensive and defensive passing and running efficiency, offensive turnover rates, defensive interception rates, and team penalty rates.

[james_walleye]

Alright, I didn't want to break out this little chart to crush your little heart, but here it is. (Updated prior to week #11).

Enjoy!

The GWP is the probability a team would beat the league average team at a neutral site. Each team's opponent's average GWP is also listed, which can be considered to-date strength of schedule, and all ratings include adjustments for opponent strength.

GWP is based on a logistic regression model applied to current team stats. The model includes offensive and defensive passing and running efficiency, offensive turnover rates, defensive interception rates, and team penalty rates.

RANK TEAM LAST WK GWP Opp GWP O RANK D RANK

1 IND 2 0.80 0.47 4 5

2 NO 1 0.79 0.44 1 16

3 PIT 3 0.76 0.50 9 3

4 NE 5 0.73 0.50 3 12

5 DAL 6 0.70 0.49 2 17

6 PHI 8 0.70 0.48 10 1

7 DEN 4 0.69 0.54 15 4

8 SD 7 0.69 0.48 5 21

9 CIN 9 0.66 0.57 11 6

10 NYG 10 0.65 0.49 8 10

11 MIN 12 0.64 0.42 6 23

12 GB 11 0.63 0.43 13 7

13 BAL 15 0.59 0.50 12 11

14 HOU 14 0.57 0.48 7 26

15 NYJ 13 0.55 0.47 24 2

16 ARI 17 0.49 0.51 17 14

17 JAC 19 0.49 0.47 14 30

18 ATL 16 0.46 0.53 16 25

19 WAS 25 0.46 0.42 21 13

20 TEN 20 0.45 0.57 18 20

21 CAR 24 0.44 0.51 25 9

22 CHI 18 0.43 0.45 19 18

23 SF 22 0.42 0.50 26 8

24 SEA 21 0.39 0.47 23 19

25 MIA 23 0.38 0.57 22 22

26 BUF 26 0.32 0.47 28 15

27 STL 27 0.29 0.53 20 27

28 TB 28 0.22 0.56 27 29

29 KC 30 0.20 0.51 29 32

30 OAK 29 0.17 0.55 31 24

31 DET 31 0.15 0.56 30 31

32 CLE 32 0.11 0.59 32 28

LOL is this the same computer that predicted that a Jackson led viking team would win as many games as a Favre led vikings team?

Or is this the computer that predicted Favres stats for the year would be 23 TD's and 12 INT's? LOL i can't believe you just listed this to backup your arguement....

Haha this model has the seahawks defense rated higher than the vikings. The computer is saying the vikings would be better off with the seahawks defense. Quite the proof there LMIT....atta boy....

[LMITOUT]

Maybe this will clear it up for you:

Offensive rank (ORANK) is offensive generic win probability, which is based on each team's offensive efficiency stats only. In other words, it's the team's GWP assuming it had a league-average defense. DRANK is is a team's generic win probability rank assuming it had a league-average offense.

No apology required.

[james_walleye]

Ya and the computer projections on Favres TD's and INTs, and the projection comparing Favre and Jackson led vikings teams were based on numbers as well. What does it mean? Well we've seen absolutely nothing and it means someone has nothing better to do. This is something that fishin58 would pull out of his rear, im disappointed in you.

[LMITOUT]

If you'll notice, the Vikings have the lowest "opponent GWP" which is their opponent's to-date strength of schedule. In other words, they've been playing cupcakes.

[james_walleye]

GB's is higher, they must be a better team, even though the vikings beat them twice. NO is barely above the vikes, they are worthless to i guess.

[LMITOUT]

Ya and the computer projections on Favres TD's and INTs, and the projection comparing Favre and Jackson led vikings teams were based on numbers as well.

There is a difference. Those things you mentioned were projections and what I posted is a statistical analysis based on real season stats up to, but not including, week #11.

And I don't believe it was the same "computer", as you call it.

[croixflats]

Alright, I didn't want to break out this little chart to crush your little heart, but here it is. (Updated prior to week #11).

Enjoy!

The GWP is the probability a team would beat the league average team at a neutral site. Each team's opponent's average GWP is also listed, which can be considered to-date strength of schedule, and all ratings include adjustments for opponent strength.

GWP is based on a logistic regression model applied to current team stats. The model includes offensive and defensive passing and running efficiency, offensive turnover rates, defensive interception rates, and team penalty rates.

My eyes! My eyes! to many numbers to desipher. Worst than than looking at the honey do list. Yes dear I'll do that next. No dear I'll do it before I go fishing but first I have to go to the hardware store. What? the boat is on the truck well I cant get it off the hitch and the car is in front of the truck.

[james_walleye]

Originally Posted By: james_walleye

Ya and the computer projections on Favres TD's and INTs, and the projection comparing Favre and Jackson led vikings teams were based on numbers as well.

There is a difference. Those things you mentioned were projections and what I posted is a statistical analysis based on real season stats up to, but not including, week #11.

And I don't believe it was the same "computer", as you call it.

Didnt multiple BCS computers have Iowa ranked #1 before they lost their last 2 games? Ranked #1 even though everyone who watched football knew they were probably not even a top 5, or maybe not even a top 10 team? Pretty sure that "analysis" is similiar to yours. Find me anyone who thinks the vikings are not one of the top 10 teams in the NFL. LOL Again, nice work....

[LMITOUT]

You're still missing the point. The data posted above is the probability of a team beating a league average team at a neutral site.

It's a way of normalizing the data in an attempt to illustrate which team is a better team, instead of just looking at a teams overall record and saying they're best or worst just because the number in the W or L column says so. It takes the offensive and defensive data accumulated by each team up to this point, looks at the SOS of the team's they've played, and spits out a probability of how they stack up against each other.

This way you don't look at, say, Minnesota and see their 9-1 record and think they're one of the best teams, when in reality they've played cupcakes which has inflated their record. Same is said about the opposite where a team has a poor record but they may have played some better teams so their record doesn't reflect the team they maybe really are. That's why SOS is a part of this analysis.