Kyle thinks we should beat Miami first, then consider becoming buyers at the trade deadline

[Stout]

I'd wager that Monti thinks the team is ahead of schedule and is looking at what happened when the Giants overextended themselves through a fluke playoff appearance. I also think he's very aware of what the Vikes have accomplished with a patient build.

4-4 is nice but it's probably a fluke result.

True, and there should be caution, of course. No one's advocating trading high picks--unless someone like Garrett becomes available. Trading 6ths for guys that might help the pass rush is doing nothing to overextend.

 

[BritCard]

True, and there should be caution, of course. No one's advocating trading high picks--unless someone like Garrett becomes available. Trading 6ths for guys that might help the pass rush is doing nothing to overextend.

For me all picks after round 4 are better spent on trades. What are the odds of getting a good starter after 4? Certainly for us, not great.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

We're in desperate need of above average starters, and we have a lot of young guys already. If you can get some great players whilst trading picks round 1-3, why not at this point? It's not like we're lacking in salary cap space. (Of course this is all predicated on them being under contract for several years)

 

[dreamcastrocks]

4-4 is nice but it's probably a fluke result.

I don't think that it is a fluke result. We were in a lot of close games last year and didn't figure out how to win them. This year we are. That shows more progress IMO than it being a fluke.

(I do find it weird that we are probably winning games that most of us thought we would lose, and losing games many thought we would win.)

 

[daves]

(I do find it weird that we are probably winning games that most of us thought we would lose, and losing games many thought we would win.)

Actually, that might simply be a matter of how the opponents were perceived at the time. The Cards have lost only to teams with 6 wins, and defeated every team with 4 or fewer wins.

 

[kerouac9]

I don't think that it is a fluke result. We were in a lot of close games last year and didn't figure out how to win them. This year we are. That shows more progress IMO than it being a fluke.

(I do find it weird that we are probably winning games that most of us thought we would lose, and losing games many thought we would win.)

I guess. This season we're 3-2 in games decided by seven points or less (essentially random results). Last year we were 2-5 in games decided by seven points or less. The signal that we're improving is that we're in more games that come down to the final drive on one side of the ball or the other. It shows that we're approaching being an average NFL team (we're 20th in DVOA right now).

The next step is creating more results that don't come down to the last drive. This is what good teams do. Three of the Lions' wins this year have been by more than seven points; they're one loss was by four. One reason to short Kansas City RN is they are 5-0 in games decided by a TD or less. They're likely to revert toward the mean in future games.

I don't put any stock in "learning to win" nonsense.

 

[Mark22]

Rashid Shaheed? signed through 2025. Saints, as usual, are wayyyyyy over the cap next year and may not be in position to extend him

Olave would instantly vault the WR corp up the charts -- Olave from pure experience would push existing WRs down one slot. Also signed through 2025 (the fifth year option -- so i suspect you would need to extend him)

Shaheed is out for the season

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I don't put any stock in "learning to win" nonsense.

I guess you don't put any stock in actual wins either...

There are a whole lot of factors, and a whole lot of skills that come into play when the games are close.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Actually, that might simply be a matter of how the opponents were perceived at the time. The Cards have lost only to teams with 6 wins, and defeated every team with 4 or fewer wins.

I mean, sure. But did anyone really expect SF (on the bad side) or Washington (on the good) to be where they are now?

 

[kerouac9]

I guess you don't put any stock in actual wins either...

There are a whole lot of factors, and a whole lot of skills that come into play when the games are close.

Nah. It's actually just luck, a bounce of the ball, a call from an official, etc., etc.

Arians' obscene winning percentage in one-score games was remarkable because it was so unusual, and over such a large sample size. Really good teams don't end up in one-score games, and usually hover around .500 in them.

 

[kerouac9]

I mean, sure. But did anyone really expect SF (on the bad side) or Washington (on the good) to be where they are now?

San Franciso is 4-4. They're 1-3 in games decided by a TD or less, despite their long list of injuries.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Nah. It's actually just luck, a bounce of the ball, a call from an official, etc., etc.

Arians' obscene winning percentage in one-score games was remarkable because it was so unusual, and over such a large sample size. Really good teams don't end up in one-score games, and usually hover around .500 in them.

Who's claiming this team is really good? 4-4 probably should be considered average.

To dismiss one score games out of hand seems wildly controversial. Since 2000, over half of the games played were one won by one score or less. Being good at this seems pretty important to me...

 

[602 Native]

Be prudent of course but if you could get a Garrett or Crosby then you see what you need to offer.

Adding some help on D plus getting Robinson back should help out tremendously with the rush and ultimately in coverage as well. I really don't see downside here with where we are.

Anyone else getting Dan Campbell vibes when it comes to this team and JG?

 

[kerouac9]

Being good at this seems pretty important to me...

The point is that no one is “good at this” and so you work to be involved in fewer one-score games.

 

[602 Native]

I'd wager that Monti thinks the team is ahead of schedule and is looking at what happened when the Giants overextended themselves through a fluke playoff appearance. I also think he's very aware of what the Vikes have accomplished with a patient build.

4-4 is nice but it's probably a fluke result.

If he thinks that he is totally out of touch. Teams are turning around in one season.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The point is that no one is “good at this” and so you work to be involved in fewer one-score games.

From 2020 - 2022: It's a really good sample size as well, because 30 teams out of the 32 played in exactly 51 games in that time span.

Chiefs went 35-16, that's "good at this"
Cowboys went 35-16, that's "good at this"
49ers went 35-16, that's "good at this"
Eagles went 34-17, that's "good at this"

4 teams that have had good records, also win a lot of games. Not that surprising.

I could also show you the teams that were really bad at it. I bet you could guess which ones those are...

 

[some dumb guy]

this back-and-forth bickering reminds me of when my wife and I retired...

If they find me chopped up in the freezer
Don't believe the suicide note!!!! Haaahaaaa

 

[kerouac9]

From 2020 - 2022: It's a really good sample size as well, because 30 teams out of the 32 played in exactly 51 games in that time span.

Chiefs went 35-16, that's "good at this"
Cowboys went 35-16, that's "good at this"
49ers went 35-16, that's "good at this"
Eagles went 34-17, that's "good at this"

4 teams that have had good records, also win a lot of games. Not that surprising.

I could also show you the teams that were really bad at it. I bet you could guess which ones those are...

Um... why are you leaving out 2023 and 2024? I wonder if because that doesn't support your thesis??

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Um... why are you leaving out 2023 and 2024? I wonder if because that doesn't support your thesis??

Because I couldn't readily find the data on it. If you do, let me know.

 

[kerouac9]

Because I couldn't readily find the data on it. If you do, let me know.

You couldn't find wins and losses for the 2023 and 2024 seasons? Did you try looking here?

Yes, the KC team was 8-1 in their one-score games in 2020 (Covid season, so make of that what you will). The next season they were 4-4 in one-score games (including playoffs). Did they suddenly forget how to win close games? Or did they revert back to the mean?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You couldn't find wins and losses for the 2023 and 2024 seasons? Did you try looking here?

Why you gotta be like this? I couldn't easily find the records factoring in one score losses.

you know, this whole debate we have been talking about...

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I think there is definitely something to being able to win close games. It’s probably the QB. But good teams seem to find a way to win and bad teams find a way to lose. I don’t think it’s random.
There’s something to be said for making plays to get the win when needed.

 

[kerouac9]

Why you gotta be like this? I couldn't easily find the records factoring in one score losses.

you know, this whole debate we have been talking about...

You just… count them?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You just… count them?

I could, sure. I also provided enough data and context to prove that teams can be good at it and it is important.

 

[Chopper0080]

I could, sure. I also provided enough data and context to prove that teams can be good at it and it is important.

From a gambling aspect, you do tend to look at teams records in one score games and bet against those that had outlier records. Anything outside of the 40%-60% tends to regress to the mean.