If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NFL)   2012 final record predictions for all the NFL teams. Your (obviously more objective) predictions to the right -   (nfl.com) divider line 114
    More: Interesting, NFL, Osi Umenyiora, Justin Tuck, Chan Gailey, New England Patriots, predictions, Jets, dolphins  
•       •       •

2955 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Sep 2012 at 1:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-08 12:18:36 PM
Jets: 18:0, wait, no 213:0
 
2012-09-08 12:26:13 PM
Four teams at 12-4? That is highly unlikely.
 
2012-09-08 01:05:05 PM
3-way tie in the NFC South? i could dig it.
 
2012-09-08 01:10:51 PM
The Colts are supposed to go 8-8? Ha ha ha ha ha..........oh wait, he's serious.
 
2012-09-08 01:12:07 PM
Ah, the joys of scheduling in the NFL. a 2-14 year followed by the 2nd hardest schedule in the NFL. Bradford and Jackson will be gone before the Rams can get good again, sigh.

/goes back to watching the 1999 season again
 
2012-09-08 01:13:20 PM
Oakland Raiders: 6-10

/it's hard to be a Raiders fan
//Seattle 10-6? Really?
 
2012-09-08 01:15:39 PM

basemetal: Oakland Raiders: 6-10

/it's hard to be a Raiders fan
//Seattle 10-6? Really?


Seriously the NFCW prediction is ridiculous.

Although that division is roulette every year anyways.
 
2012-09-08 01:18:04 PM
Giants 16-0!

...FARK!
 
2012-09-08 01:19:04 PM
Seems pretty balanced to me. I would buy the Packers topping the averages at 12-4, along with a couple of other strong teams.

Let's see how the playoffs work out--still annoyed...

/GO PACKERS!
 
2012-09-08 01:27:10 PM
I would add a game or two to Detroit and subtract a game or two from Chicago.
 
2012-09-08 01:28:47 PM
 
2012-09-08 01:30:05 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: I would add a game or two to Detroit and subtract a game or two from Chicago.


And you would be wrong. Stafford is Mark Sanchez 2.0.
 
2012-09-08 01:34:49 PM
The Chiefs aren't going 10-6.
 
2012-09-08 01:37:43 PM

JosephFinn: hulk hogan meat shoes: I would add a game or two to Detroit and subtract a game or two from Chicago.

And you would be wrong. Stafford is Mark Sanchez 2.0.


I know it's a college football Saturday, and spending most of the day drunk is encouraged, but you, sir, have had entirely way too much. I would go get your stomach pumped to avoid alcohol poisoning.
 
2012-09-08 01:41:13 PM
This, depressingly, seems like a more accurate reading of the Bills' record this year. I have a lot of trouble believing the hype. Doesn't mean I won't be terribly depressed once they become irrelevant again by Week 8.
 
2012-09-08 01:42:15 PM
I'll be thrilled if the Ravens go 11-5 and make the playoffs. I always worry about them heading into the season, and with Suggs out for a while, you just never know.

5 straights years in the playoffs would be pretty sweet!
 
2012-09-08 01:43:09 PM
Step 1: Predict the NFL season.
Step 2: Provide absolutely no grounded opinion to provide that prediction, since this is NFL.com, and clearly, if you're on NFL.com, you must be an "expert".
Step 3: Stop giving nonsense like this your eyes and ears.
 
2012-09-08 01:43:24 PM

basemetal: Oakland Raiders: 6-10

/it's hard to be a Raiders fan
//Seattle 10-6? Really?


Allow me to explain the NFC West prediction
The 9ers benefitted from very good injury luck, which is unlikely to repeat and they benefitted from unsusual turnover luck (forcing fumbles and interceptions isn't random, but recovering fumbles is). This is a new year and fantastic fortune isn't likely to continue. Further more a young, inexperienced, seattle team hung with them in each of their games despite some of the worst injury luck in the NFL that year, now they appear to have upgraded at quarterback, and added depth at that and other positions. Then factor in the harder scheduel for the 9ers, who will be playing on the road teams like the packers, patriots, and I believe saints. Where the Seahawks play the first 2 at home and instead of the saints they play carolina. Then there's the preseason games, titans, broncos, chiefs, raiders for the Seahawks, and the Seahawks are among the league leaders if not the leaders in every statistical catagory, and outscored their opponants in every single quarter, while not playing many starters.

That's the impact of luck. A middling team can explode to a contender. What seperates the great teams like the Manning era Colts and Patriots, is they were able to be consistantly great by inventing new ways to win, minimizing the impact of luck good or bad. Feasting on less able divisional opponants doesn't hurt either.
 
2012-09-08 01:44:48 PM
He's buying into Philly & Seattle's teams both coming together. This guy is dead to me. DEAD

And three 12-4 teams? NO. Packers, maybe.

And a 3-way tie in the NFC South at 10-6? What. Evaaaaarrrrrrrr!
 
2012-09-08 01:46:45 PM
I see the Redskins around 6-10. I am leaning toward 7-9 though. They just aren't there yet, especially the offensive line which I am actually the third string for. The real question is whether Snyder gives Shanahanigans the boot after a 3rd losing season. I mean he fired Marty after one season of 8-8
 
2012-09-08 01:48:21 PM
I still don't buy that the Browns' S.O.S. is automatically going to damn them to the 3-13, top of the draft board range. Outside of our division opponents, the rest of the teams on the schedule combine for a sub-500 record. I think 6-10 or 7-9 is definitely doable, especially if our young guys can start to come together as the season progresses.

I'm predicting a slow start and a strong finish that will put the Browns at 7-9 for the season.

Oh, and we will beat Pittsburgh once.
 
2012-09-08 01:48:34 PM

Jonny Chimpo: I see the Redskins around 6-10. I am leaning toward 7-9 though. They just aren't there yet, especially the offensive line which I am actually the third string for. The real question is whether Snyder gives Shanahanigans the boot after a 3rd losing season. I mean he fired Marty after one season of 8-8


RG3 is going to have negative rushing yards this season because of all the sacks.
 
2012-09-08 01:48:43 PM

Tickle Mittens: basemetal: Oakland Raiders: 6-10

/it's hard to be a Raiders fan
//Seattle 10-6? Really?

Allow me to explain the NFC West prediction
The 9ers benefitted from very good injury luck, which is unlikely to repeat and they benefitted from unsusual turnover luck (forcing fumbles and interceptions isn't random, but recovering fumbles is). This is a new year and fantastic fortune isn't likely to continue. Further more a young, inexperienced, seattle team hung with them in each of their games despite some of the worst injury luck in the NFL that year, now they appear to have upgraded at quarterback, and added depth at that and other positions. Then factor in the harder scheduel for the 9ers, who will be playing on the road teams like the packers, patriots, and I believe saints. Where the Seahawks play the first 2 at home and instead of the saints they play carolina. Then there's the preseason games, titans, broncos, chiefs, raiders for the Seahawks, and the Seahawks are among the league leaders if not the leaders in every statistical catagory, and outscored their opponants in every single quarter, while not playing many starters.

That's the impact of luck. A middling team can explode to a contender. What seperates the great teams like the Manning era Colts and Patriots, is they were able to be consistantly great by inventing new ways to win, minimizing the impact of luck good or bad. Feasting on less able divisional opponants doesn't hurt either.


Don't forget that the Seahawks had unusually bad luck in close games as well last year - even a regression to the mean would result in an extra 2-3 wins, and that's with assuming that they're equal across the board from last year. They're not. Anyone writing the Seahawks off doesn't know sh*t about football and thinks that the record last year is indicative of the talent on that squad.

They went .500 with injured Tarvaris Jackson! Not even a healthy Tarvaris Jackson!
 
2012-09-08 01:51:57 PM
Simmons needs to try the veal. Seattle could win the NFC West--the 49ers did benefit from a ridiculous turnover ratio and uncanny lack of injuries--but 12-4? First seed in the NFC? Really? Wilson could be the second coming of Jesus Christ himself. He might be a franchise quarterback. The defense is very good and very young. He's still a rookie. He hasn't played a snap with coordinates game planning against him. Let's hold off crowning his ass just a bit longer, please. Or maybe not; they're a division rival after all. Perhaps Simmons should lavish more praise onto him, anoint him the new Brady and all manner of jinx inducing habits.
 
2012-09-08 01:53:13 PM

IAmRight: Tickle Mittens: basemetal: Oakland Raiders: 6-10

/it's hard to be a Raiders fan
//Seattle 10-6? Really?

Allow me to explain the NFC West prediction
The 9ers benefitted from very good injury luck, which is unlikely to repeat and they benefitted from unsusual turnover luck (forcing fumbles and interceptions isn't random, but recovering fumbles is). This is a new year and fantastic fortune isn't likely to continue. Further more a young, inexperienced, seattle team hung with them in each of their games despite some of the worst injury luck in the NFL that year, now they appear to have upgraded at quarterback, and added depth at that and other positions. Then factor in the harder scheduel for the 9ers, who will be playing on the road teams like the packers, patriots, and I believe saints. Where the Seahawks play the first 2 at home and instead of the saints they play carolina. Then there's the preseason games, titans, broncos, chiefs, raiders for the Seahawks, and the Seahawks are among the league leaders if not the leaders in every statistical catagory, and outscored their opponants in every single quarter, while not playing many starters.

That's the impact of luck. A middling team can explode to a contender. What seperates the great teams like the Manning era Colts and Patriots, is they were able to be consistantly great by inventing new ways to win, minimizing the impact of luck good or bad. Feasting on less able divisional opponants doesn't hurt either.

Don't forget that the Seahawks had unusually bad luck in close games as well last year - even a regression to the mean would result in an extra 2-3 wins, and that's with assuming that they're equal across the board from last year. They're not. Anyone writing the Seahawks off doesn't know sh*t about football and thinks that the record last year is indicative of the talent on that squad.

They went .500 with injured Tarvaris Jackson! Not even a healthy Tarvaris Jackson!


I've heard 7 or 9 people say the Seahawks did not, in fact, go .500 last season. Or the one before that.
 
2012-09-08 01:55:35 PM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: I've heard 7 or 9 people say the Seahawks did not, in fact, go .500 last season. Or the one before that.


You sound like you visit the ESPN NFCW blog once in a while...
 
2012-09-08 01:56:08 PM
The only thing I'd say is that the NFC North middle teams are too low and probably the NFC South teams are too high. But most of it aligns with pretty much what I said to my friend a couple days ago - I'd go with tiers in each division - Tier 1 can win a division/first-round bye, Tier 2 can make the playoffs, anything below that isn't anything. Tiers separated by semicolons.

AFCE: Patriots; Bills/Jets; Dolphins
AFCN: Ravens; Steelers/Bengals; Browns
AFCS: Texans; Titans/Colts (I give the Colts this much credit only because they actually have some hope - they should probably be tier 2.5); Jaguars
AFCW: Everyone in this division could win the division or finish 5-11

NFCE: Giants/Cowboys/Eagles; Redskins
NFCN: Packers/Bears/Lions; ; Vikings
NFCS: Falcons (not that they'll do anything in the playoffs); Saints (Tier 1.5 - too many way unknowns)/Bucs/Panthers
NFCW: Seattle/San Francisco; Arizona/St. Louis
 
2012-09-08 01:56:53 PM
Colts at 8-8? I think you overestimate their chances.
 
2012-09-08 02:01:09 PM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: I've heard 7 or 9 people say the Seahawks did not, in fact, go .500 last season. Or the one before that.


You seem to not understand ".500 with an injured Tarvaris Jackson" is not "finished the season at .500 with injured Tarvaris Jackson and the incompetent buffoon Charlie Whitehurst, whose games we'd have been better off just running the Wildcat all game rather than starting."

Also, you'll note that tanking that last game against the Cardinals got us two free draft picks. Congratulations on your meaningless win that cost you draft position, though.
 
2012-09-08 02:03:59 PM
Miami Dolphins: 3-13...that sounds about right

Bucs 3-13? I think they are better than that, though not a playoff team to be sure. Id figure at least 6 maybe 7 wins. This year will determine whether or not Freeman can start in this league.
 
2012-09-08 02:24:31 PM

CavalierEternal: I still don't buy that the Browns' S.O.S. is automatically going to damn them to the 3-13, top of the draft board range. Outside of our division opponents, the rest of the teams on the schedule combine for a sub-500 record. I think 6-10 or 7-9 is definitely doable, especially if our young guys can start to come together as the season progresses.

I'm predicting a slow start and a strong finish that will put the Browns at 7-9 for the season.

Oh, and we will beat Pittsburgh once.


Dude, I'm a Clevelander.

No. . .

Just no.

3-13 might be generous.

We have no run defense, and our LB's have more issues than a newspaper.
 
2012-09-08 02:26:15 PM

historycat: We have no run defense, and our LB's have more issues than a newspaper.


B-b-but Trent Richardson? Eh? EEEEEEH?
 
2012-09-08 02:26:59 PM

CavalierEternal: I still don't buy that the Browns' S.O.S. is automatically going to damn them to the 3-13, top of the draft board range. Outside of our division opponents, the rest of the teams on the schedule combine for a sub-500 record. I think 6-10 or 7-9 is definitely doable, especially if our young guys can start to come together as the season progresses.


It's not the SOS that's going to damn them, it's the fact that they're an awful team with no talent and they just got the worst QB in the draft (who happens to be the oldest).

/okay, Tannehill might be worse
 
2012-09-08 02:27:42 PM

Di Atribe: And three 12-4 teams? NO. Packers, maybe.


Last year, there were three 13-3 teams, plus two 12-4 teams (and a 15-1 team). This seems conservative by comparison.
 
2012-09-08 02:29:03 PM
More interesting is that he's predicting that the Giants won't make the playoffs.
 
2012-09-08 02:39:28 PM

historycat: CavalierEternal: I still don't buy that the Browns' S.O.S. is automatically going to damn them to the 3-13, top of the draft board range. Outside of our division opponents, the rest of the teams on the schedule combine for a sub-500 record. I think 6-10 or 7-9 is definitely doable, especially if our young guys can start to come together as the season progresses.

I'm predicting a slow start and a strong finish that will put the Browns at 7-9 for the season.

Oh, and we will beat Pittsburgh once.

Dude, I'm a Clevelander.

No. . .

Just no.

3-13 might be generous.

We have no run defense, and our LB's have more issues than a newspaper.


We're not going to have anymore issues with our linebackers or run defense than we did last year when we went 4-12 and lost most of those games by 7 points or less. There's absolutely no reason why we can't hit 6-10 or 7-9 if our offense is able to make even the slightest bit of an improvement this season.
 
2012-09-08 02:42:28 PM

Theaetetus: More interesting is that he's predicting that the Giants won't make the playoffs.


It's hard to repeat, the Giants are often slow starters in the mold of the Chargers, they barely snuck is as divisional champs last year. While it might not jive with conventional wisdom, it's not particularly unusual.
 
2012-09-08 02:47:11 PM
Apparently Cowherd has the Chicago in the Super Bowl.

As a Bears fan, I did not like hearing this.
 
2012-09-08 02:51:29 PM

Your_Huckleberry: Apparently Cowherd has the Chicago in the Super Bowl.

As a Bears fan, I did not like hearing this.


Along with me having Cutler and Forte on my fantasy teams, you really should be scared.
 
2012-09-08 02:52:20 PM
Kansas City doesn't look great at quarterback, but they have enough depth and talent elsewhere to survive a marathon season.

Is KC playing more games in their 'marathon'?

I don't know why more people & Fark go to ColdHardFootballFacts.com for analysis. They use pesky things like facts & statistics. As well as looking at the NFL all the way back to the 30's.
It's like kryptonite for the Skip Bayless, "all they did was run the ball pre-superbowl" crowd.
 
2012-09-08 03:06:09 PM

Your_Huckleberry: Apparently Cowherd has the Chicago in the Super Bowl.

As a Bears fan, I did not like hearing this.


Bears & Texans are the smart picks since both lost so much due to injury last year & they've gained some talent.

On average 5 playoff teams will not make it back this year. My picks for that in order of confidence.
Bengals
Giants
Saints
Steelers
Broncos

Replaced with:
KC (wildcard)
Cowboys
Philly (wildcard)
Raiders (wildcard)
Chargers

Yes, 3 AFC West. That division is a total WTFBBQ. Why not 3?
 
2012-09-08 03:06:26 PM

Jonny Chimpo: I see the Redskins around 6-10. I am leaning toward 7-9 though. They just aren't there yet, especially the offensive line which I am actually the third string for. The real question is whether Snyder gives Shanahanigans the boot after a 3rd losing season. I mean he fired Marty after one season of 8-8


What in the fu*k makes you think they're going to be any better than the team that's won a combined 15 games in the last 3 years? A rookie QB?
 
2012-09-08 03:07:45 PM
Wizard McWizards Team Breakdown. No records just division orders and playoff predictions:
East North South West
Patriots Baltimore Texans Denver
Jets Pitt Colts SD
Bills Cincy Titans KC
Dolphins Cleveland Jags Oakland

East North South West
Eagles GB Tampa San Fran
Giants Chicago ATL Arizona
Cowboys Minny Saints Rams
Redskins Lions Panthers Seattle

AFC Playoffs: Denver over Jets; Balt over SD; Balt over Houston; NE over Denver; Balt over Denver
NFC Playoffs: Chicago over San Fran; Philly over ATL; GB over Chicago; Philly over Tampa; GB over Philly
Superbowl: Balt over GB
MVP: Tom Brady
ROTY: Doug Martin
DMVP: A member of Denver's front line
Comeback: Peyton Manning
Worst Team: Jacksonville (who will get the 1 pick and leave town to LA)
Random guesses: Colt McCoy gets two of Clevelands 4 wins; Foles is the Eagles QB from week 12 onward; Megatron is shut down for the year in week 4, Stafford hurt too; Skeleton is a fantasy steal; two bad ref breaks cost the Saints a playoff spot; RG3 bombs; This is Romo/Garrett's last year in Dallas after a 7-9 finish
 
2012-09-08 03:08:34 PM

bionicjoe: Your_Huckleberry: Apparently Cowherd has the Chicago in the Super Bowl.

As a Bears fan, I did not like hearing this.

Bears & Texans are the smart picks since both lost so much due to injury last year & they've gained some talent.

On average 5 playoff teams will not make it back this year. My picks for that in order of confidence.
Bengals
Giants
Saints
Steelers
Broncos

Replaced with:
KC (wildcard)
Cowboys
Philly (wildcard)
Raiders (wildcard)
Chargers

Yes, 3 AFC West. That division is a total WTFBBQ. Why not 3?


Because math makes it incredibly unlikely?
 
2012-09-08 03:17:08 PM
not having read teh story, there was a story i submitted last year -- not sure if it was greenlit or not -- but soemone took I think Colin Cowherd's team-by-team record predictions and found that it was mathematically impossible! as in, his aggregate record was like, 155 wins versus 121 losses (or whatever the math was) but there are only 256 games in a season, period.

whatever his math was, there was no way it could happen. i found that funny.
 
2012-09-08 03:23:46 PM

Theaetetus: Di Atribe: And three 12-4 teams? NO. Packers, maybe.

Last year, there were three 13-3 teams, plus two 12-4 teams (and a 15-1 team). This seems conservative by comparison.


In my personal, anecdotal, and in NO WAY scientific experience, something happening last year is a clear indicator that it won't be happening again this year.
 
2012-09-08 03:27:50 PM
Brought to you by the same Illuminati that all picked the gints over Dallas, Iggles? ahahahaaaaaaa....no wait..ahahaaaaaaaaaaa....I can't..............hahahaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaa.........omg......
 
2012-09-08 03:31:43 PM
As a lions fan, my feelings about this year are better than ever. But I guess that doesn't say much does it.

/Went to a game during their "defeated" season.
 
2012-09-08 03:35:51 PM
Arizona 5-11


yeah......we're so shaky due to the QB situation but what isn't being talked about, is the O Line. Locally, we all know how part of Kolb's shakiness was the lack of protection. And, we lost what's his nuts for the year circa game 3 of preseason. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, we signed a couple guys off other team's final cut (53) roster, and tehy could be starting.

to the extent we get any national media attention, it will be exlcusively on either how bad / good Skelton or Kolb plays, but the real focus, as with any team, should be "how good is the QB's protection / how good cant hey assist the run game?"
 
2012-09-08 03:55:18 PM
Saints 13-3

But one of those needs to happen tomorrow against Washington, I got 5 bills on it.

www.neworleanssaints.com

WHO DAT
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report