NFC West Predictions 2018

[BSUSeahawk]

Rams 11-5
Seahawks 8-8
49ers 6-10
Cardinals 3-13

A lot of people are picking the Rams to fall back. They could (I'm not sold on Goff what-so-ever), but that's a pretty good overall team that added some big talent. IMO they're the clear frontrunner here. I tend to think the 49ers are the real overrated team in the division. Setting aside the debate over how good Jimmy G is, the rest of that roster is still pretty bad. JG better be the next Tom Brady to meet the expectations on that team.

Feel pretty good about this still, outside of underselling the Rams, who may lose 1-2 games all year.

I think 6-10/7-9 is more likely than 8-8 for the Hawks, but I'll just say the homer in me added a couple wins..

 

[Anointed One]

This division is up in the air going into the season with the Rams the favorites... What are your predictions this year for the NFC West

Rams: 11-5
Seahawks: 10-6
49ers: 8-8
Cardinals: 6-10

I definitely feel like I homered out on the Hawks going 10-6... Hard to believe that they will reach this mark... Unless injuries happen, hard to believe that the Rams will lose more than 2 games all season... They are stacked everywhere on that roster...

 

[JMR]

I definitely feel like I homered out on the Hawks going 10-6... Hard to believe that they will reach this mark... Unless injuries happen, hard to believe that the Rams will lose more than 2 games all season... They are stacked everywhere on that roster...

I had 10-6 for the Hawks as well, and I would still feel good about it if we hadn't dropped the Chicago game. May very well get swept by the Rams, but I think we still should go 4-2 in the division with Jimmy G done and re-match with Cards being in Seattle. That would mean 9-7 if we go 4-3 in the remaining non-div games.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I definitely feel like I homered out on the Hawks going 10-6... Hard to believe that they will reach this mark... Unless injuries happen, hard to believe that the Rams will lose more than 2 games all season... They are stacked everywhere on that roster...

With both their CBs out, it would be wise to expose their backups as much as possible.

 

[Uhsplit]

With both their CBs out, it would be wise to expose their backups as much as possible.

That would be sweet if we can pull it off, but my guess is we try to run.
In passing, a quick drop and throw might be a good idea.
It might be a challenge just to be able to complete many to WRs.

 

[Anointed One]

With both their CBs out, it would be wise to expose their backups as much as possible.

I think only Talib has been out... Marcus Peters played last week I think...

 

[JMR]

I think only Talib has been out... Marcus Peters played last week I think...

Peters did play, somewhat unexpectedly. Talib is on IR.

 

[Screamin12th]

The Rams will lose a couple games this year. They are not going 16-0. Here is hope the Hawks give them one of those loses.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I think only Talib has been out... Marcus Peters played last week I think...

Peters did play, somewhat unexpectedly. Talib is on IR.

Damn, I thought both were still out.

 

[JMR]

It's something being talked about quite a bit on the radio (I'm a 710 guy) this week: are you expectations different after Sunday?

Mine are more validated than different. Or maybe revitalized, since I predicted 10-6 and thought this team was going to resemble the 2012 version. I still feel more like that than not. We have now had a 100+ yard rusher for 3 straight games for the first time since Dec 2012. Russell hasn't had to run for his life since around week 2. Put those two things together, along with the eye test, and clearly the work we have done over the past 2 or 3 seasons to fix the line is finally starting to show up on the field. This actually looks like a really good run blocking group right now, which is a weird place to be considering what was going on a year ago.

Still some risk or concern with such a young defense though. The secondary is playing pretty well but is still vulnerable to mistakes from inexperience, and our pass rush has been pretty light. Definitely a reality that youth & inexperience could cause a hiccup here and there against teams we should beat, but another solid performance and step forward this Sunday could go a long way.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

My expectations are the same. Still think they go 7-9 or 8-8. It was definitely an encouraging game and they did a lot of things well, but it doesn't overhaul what I think of the team at this point in the year.

 

[Anointed One]

It's something being talked about quite a bit on the radio (I'm a 710 guy) this week: are you expectations different after Sunday?

Mine are more validated than different. Or maybe revitalized, since I predicted 10-6 and thought this team was going to resemble the 2012 version. I still feel more like that than not. We have now had a 100+ yard rusher for 3 straight games for the first time since Dec 2012. Russell hasn't had to run for his life since around week 2. Put those two things together, along with the eye test, and clearly the work we have done over the past 2 or 3 seasons to fix the line is finally starting to show up on the field. This actually looks like a really good run blocking group right now, which is a weird place to be considering what was going on a year ago.

Still some risk or concern with such a young defense though. The secondary is playing pretty well but is still vulnerable to mistakes from inexperience, and our pass rush has been pretty light. Definitely a reality that youth & inexperience could cause a hiccup here and there against teams we should beat, but another solid performance and step forward this Sunday could go a long way.

Running the ball effectively has made us much better and fits RW's strengths more... He's able to use play action effectively since he's a very good deep ball thrower... That play action has given him time to sit in the pocket a bit longer than normal and find receivers open down field...

We are 2-1 (almost 3-0) in the last 3 games and I tribute it a lot to us being able to run the ball well...

 

[JMR]

My expectations are the same. Still think they go 7-9 or 8-8. It was definitely an encouraging game and they did a lot of things well, but it doesn't overhaul what I think of the team at this point in the year.

Interesting. So on Sunday if we have a 100 yard rusher for a 4th straight game, get a convincing win to go 3-3, you would pretty much see them on a flat .500 trajectory for the remaining 10 games even though it would be 3 wins in 4 games after starting 0-2 with the only loss being by 2 points to what most people think is the best team in the league?

Now, I know I am assuming a convincing win, but it sorta seems like what you're saying is even if that happens you expect 8 wins at best, or would you re-think if we club Oakland?

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Interesting. So on Sunday if we have a 100 yard rusher for a 4th straight game, get a convincing win to go 3-3, you would pretty much see them on a flat .500 trajectory for the remaining 10 games even though it would be 3 wins in 4 games after starting 0-2 with the only loss being by 2 points to what most people think is the best team in the league?

Now, I know I am assuming a convincing win, but it sorta seems like what you're saying is even if that happens you expect 8 wins at best, or would you re-think if we club Oakland?

Could get to 10 with possibly sweeping the Cards and maybe the Niners now with Gropp out.

 

[JMR]

Could get to 10 with possibly sweeping the Cards and maybe the Niners now with Gropp out.

I'm excited to see if this team can grow like that down the stretch. We have some awfully tough games ahead still....@Minn, @LAR, vs GB, vs KC to name a few. Getting to 10 is a challenge since we lost both of the first 2 winnable road games (I thought we would get 1 when I predicted 10-6 in pre-season). We more or less have to win every game vs opponents we "should" beat and pick up 1 or 2 in those 4 tough matchups. It's remarkable that we are now 8th in rushing after doing next to nothing in that dept the first 2 games. If we keep that rolling, it should be a great 2nd half.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

Interesting. So on Sunday if we have a 100 yard rusher for a 4th straight game, get a convincing win to go 3-3, you would pretty much see them on a flat .500 trajectory for the remaining 10 games even though it would be 3 wins in 4 games after starting 0-2 with the only loss being by 2 points to what most people think is the best team in the league?

Now, I know I am assuming a convincing win, but it sorta seems like what you're saying is even if that happens you expect 8 wins at best, or would you re-think if we club Oakland?

I would maybe re-think a little, but I also think Oakland is really bad. I would expect a win there. Also, to your point about the run, I'm probably not the right person to answer that question as I fully believe that winning/success in the 2018 NFL comes from efficiency and explosiveness in the pass game. As great as it is to see them run the ball, I'm a bit envious of teams with innovative play callers, but that's a whole different discussion.

It has more to do with the schedule and where I think the Seahawks are talent wise compared to the rest of their schedule. I am encouraged and pleasantly surprised at how well they're running the ball, but that being said, I said 7-9 or 8-8 because I still see 5 losses and 1 toss up on the schedule:

- LA Chargers (feels like a toss up)
- at LA Rams
- Green Bay
- at Carolina
- Minnesota
- Kansas City

Each one of those games I expect the Seahawks to be underdogs (heavily in a couple) and would predict them to lose. And yeah, it's a futile exercise because they could steal one or two of those, but I could also see them dropping a game at Detroit for example.

To get to 10 wins, you have to assume they win vs Oakland, at Detroit, vs SF, vs LA Chargers, at SF, vs Arizona (all of which is plausible) AND then win 2 of Rams, Packers, Panthers, Vikings and Chiefs. I don't see it.

 

[JMR]

I would maybe re-think a little, but I also think Oakland is really bad. I would expect a win there. Also, to your point about the run, I'm probably not the right person to answer that question as I fully believe that winning/success in the 2018 NFL comes from efficiency and explosiveness in the pass game. As great as it is to see them run the ball, I'm a bit envious of teams with innovative play callers, but that's a whole different discussion.

That's definitely the shiny object these days. But I think being "explosive" is more of an effect than a cause. Teams are explosive as a result of doing other things right (like blocking) and having the talent moreso than just deciding to be that way or having "innovative" play calling. Our offense was often labeled as explosive when we could run and RW wasn't under siege every play, and we could take shots down field off play action like we did vs the Rams.

To get to 10 wins, you have to assume they win vs Oakland, at Detroit, vs SF, vs LA Chargers, at SF, vs Arizona (all of which is plausible) AND then win 2 of Rams, Packers, Panthers, Vikings and Chiefs. I don't see it.

Yep, I acknowledged in post #75 that 10 wins will be a challenge after dropping the first 2. But I think only getting 7 wins if we go into the bye at 3-3 is just as unlikely, especially if we continue to be able to run the ball effectively and hold our spot at #2 in turnover ratio. Only coming up with 7 wins after a 3-3 start when 6 of the last 9 will be at home? The team more or less has to lose every single game but 1 that isn't against Arizona or SF.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

That's definitely the shiny object these days. But I think being "explosive" is more of an effect than a cause. Teams are explosive as a result of doing other things right (like blocking) and having the talent moreso than just deciding to be that way or having "innovative" play calling. Our offense was often labeled as explosive when we could run and RW wasn't under siege every play, and we could take shots down field off play action like we did vs the Rams.

I don't agree. I think there's a direct correlation between the teams that are more creative with their passing schemes and the amount of points they're scoring. Nobody thought anything of Jared Goff after his first season, but now all of a sudden he's averaging a million yards per game? Not a coincidence. Same with Kansas City, or Chicago or any of these other offenses that are ditching the "ground and pound" style of the past.

I won't get into all the analytics here or anything, but there's some really interesting stuff out there on offense and the blueprint to scoring the most possible points. Needless to say, it's quite a bit different than what the Seahawks are doing.

Yep, I acknowledged in post #75 that 10 wins will be a challenge after dropping the first 2. But I think only getting 7 wins if we go into the bye at 3-3 is just as unlikely, especially if we continue to be able to run the ball effectively and hold our spot at #2 in turnover ratio. Only coming up with 7 wins after a 3-3 start when 6 of the last 9 will be at home? The team more or less has to lose every single game but 1 that isn't against Arizona or SF.

Well, it would be losing to the Chargers, Rams, Packers, Panthers Vikings and Chiefs. The game in Carolina may be close to a PK, but I would guess that the Seahawks will be underdogs in all of those games, so I don't think it's exactly an unlikely prediction.

They did look really good yesterday, so my confidence level that they can take a couple of those is higher than it was. I'll stick with 8-8, but they can easily get to 9-7, which is probably a playoff team this year.

 

[JMR]

I don't agree. I think there's a direct correlation between the teams that are more creative with their passing schemes and the amount of points they're scoring. Nobody thought anything of Jared Goff after his first season, but now all of a sudden he's averaging a million yards per game? Not a coincidence. Same with Kansas City, or Chicago or any of these other offenses that are ditching the "ground and pound" style of the past.

I won't get into all the analytics here or anything, but there's some really interesting stuff out there on offense and the blueprint to scoring the most possible points. Needless to say, it's quite a bit different than what the Seahawks are doing.

Then why isn't everyone doing it? You don't think it's at all dependent on whether you actually have the talent to be "creative" or "explosive" without making a bunch of mistakes/turnovers and/or having a terrible defense like KC's that gives up 30+? It's an effect, not a cause. And it may get you 10+ wins in the regular season when you play 2/3 of your schedule against non-playoff teams, but when the playoffs roll around....

And Goff -- he isn't the first guy to have a rough rookie year and then end up being what we see now. The very reason why the conventional wisdom is to sit a QB for a year or 2 is what we saw Goff do as a rookie.

Well, it would be losing to the Chargers, Rams, Packers, Panthers Vikings and Chiefs. The game in Carolina may be close to a PK, but I would guess that the Seahawks will be underdogs in all of those games, so I don't think it's exactly an unlikely prediction.

Interesting. In terms of straight prob & stats, if you have a 30% chance for success, in a series of 6 opportunities there is only an 11% chance to go 0 for 6 (which also means there's an 89% chance to go at least 1 for 6), and I would say our chance to win is well over 30% in at least 4 of those 6 games you say we likely lose. So yeah, it actually is VERY unlikely we lose all 6 of those games. And depending on how things go from here, I'm not at all sold we will be home underdogs against the Vikings or Chargers. Maybe not even GB...again, depending on how things go.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

Then why isn't everyone doing it? You don't think it's at all dependent on whether you actually have the talent to be "creative" or "explosive" without making a bunch of mistakes/turnovers and/or having a terrible defense like KC's that gives up 30+? It's an effect, not a cause. And it may get you 10+ wins in the regular season when you play 2/3 of your schedule against non-playoff teams, but when the playoffs roll around....

And Goff -- he isn't the first guy to have a rough rookie year and then end up being what we see now. The very reason why the conventional wisdom is to sit a QB for a year or 2 is what we saw Goff do as a rookie.

The same reason baseball teams continued to use wins/losses when evaluating pitchers, or RBIs and errors when evaluating position players. Mostly stubbornness. And more teams ARE doing it. Teams are promoting and hiring coaches who are innovative (I know it's a buzz word, but it applies) in their approach to the passing game. Teams are throwing the ball more than ever before. And yeah, talent helps, but on the flip side, a creative offensive philosophy that schemes guys open and provides a flurry of check down options is actually a good way to mask a lack of talent. New England has been doing that for years.

When you really look at the statistical data behind offenses, there's really no debating that throwing the ball more often gives you the best chance to score points. If I'm playing devil's advocate, I would actually say that the biggest argument against it would be the impact it has on your own team's defense. I don't claim to know that correlation, but I would imagine there is a benefit to your own defense by running the ball effectively.

Interesting. In terms of straight prob & stats, if you have a 30% chance for success, in a series of 6 opportunities there is only an 11% chance to go 0 for 6 (which also means there's an 89% chance to go at least 1 for 6), and I would say our chance to win is well over 30% in at least 4 of those 6 games you say we likely lose. So yeah, it actually is VERY unlikely we lose all 6 of those games. And depending on how things go from here, I'm not at all sold we will be home underdogs against the Vikings or Chargers. Maybe not even GB...again, depending on how things go.

The Chargers could be close to a PK, but I will bet a healthy sum of money that unless there are major injuries we will be dogs against Minnesota. Not that it matters in the end.

I think it's entirely possible that the Seahawks win 1, or even 2 of those games. But they also have to win the games against the teams we expect them to beat. So while you're absolutely correct that you can't take the list of teams we probably should lose to and automatically assume losses, the same exercise applies to the games we should win. Ultimately, I think 5-5 over the final 10, to go 8-8 (which is what I predicted) is a pretty likely outcome, give or take a game in either direction.