bears under 8 wins (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I pulled all teams since 1978 that met the following:1) Won 10 or more games (or its equivalent in strike year) in back to back seasons; and 2) Then won either 6 or 7 games (or its equivalent in strike year) the following season.There were 25 such previous teams. These teams averaged 11.3 wins in year N-2 (Chi 11-5 in 2005), 11.4 wins (Chi 13-3 in 2006), and 6.6 wins in year N (Chi 7-9 in 2007). Then I looked at what they did the next season after the 6 or 7 win season. The teams run the range from the 2004 Steelers (who drafted Roethlisberger and went 15-1) to the 2004 49ers (who collapsed to 2-14 with the salary cap purge). The overall average in year N+1 was 8.6 wins. If we use an Over/Under of 8 wins, 14 of them went Over the next season (all 14 winning 10 or more games and making the playoffs), 4 would have been Pushes with 8 wins (including the 1988 Jets at 8-7-1), and 7 were Unders, including complete collapses by the aforementioned 49ers, and the 1982 Oilers and 1998 Eagles.Of the Overs, most had 10 wins. Only Pittsburgh 2004 and Saint Louis 2003 had 12 or more. None reached the Superbowl. Most of them lost in the wildcard round, and only 3 reached the Conference championship game (1989 Rams, 2002 Titans, 2004 Steelers).The Under, with the additional vig, is looking more and more like a sucker bet. Yeah, no one thinks Grossman or Orton are very good. But these are the same guys who have been taking snaps for this team over the last 3 seasons when they won 31 regular season games. And I'm not crazy about the long term outlook of this team and the decisions at quarterback. But in the short term, history would suggest they are a decent rebound option to challenge for a WC spot.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What really gets me on this whole "wins line" thing is that the Bears are at 8 wins while the Super Bowl Champion Giants are at 8.5 wins.Ya, o.k., so we have parity in the league, but THAT MUCH? Don't think so.Sure, you can make the observation that the Giants are in the NFC East, but from a talent level, the Bears are looking at similar competition in the NFC North.Giants vs. Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins. Interconference schedule vs. the AFC North (Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Steelers)Bears vs. Lions, Packers, Vikings. Interconference schedule vs. the AFC South (Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Titans)So where did the Giants get so much worse, or the Bears get so much better? No significant changes on either side, although the Bears did lose WRs Berrian and Muhammad.Just don't see the logic here.

The Bears won 7 games against a pretty hard schedule last year. Assuming an average schedule this year, which is reasonable, why wouldn't 8 wins be the number?

The Bears scored about 0.9 fewer PPG than they allowed. But the Bears' schedule was really hard -- the fifth hardest in the league -- and the Bears opponents outscored their opponents by 2.1 PPG. The Bears played the NFC East which featured four good teams, along with Seattle and SD, and obviously GB and MIN twice. That's ten games against playoff quality teams. So the Bears were probably a slightly above average team last year, that just ended up with a 7-9 record and slightly fewer points scored than allowed because of a really tough schedule.Add it up, and assuming a neutral schedule for CHI this year (which you should almost always project), and I'd expect last year's Bears to go something like 8-8 this year. If you think Chicago's moves were a net positive in the off-season, you might project them for the playoffs. If you think they were a net negative, you might project them for 6-10 or 5-11. If you think they were a net zero, 8-8 seems right.Vegas' number seems dead on. Yeah the Bears' passing game will be really bad this year, but the running game should be better. And the running game was probably worse than the passing game last year.