Oddsmakers put over/under at 6 wins

[Webbfann]

dang I thought they were. Oh well, this is fantasy football anyway

[Mothman]

Jim, you've said this about Mike Zimmer a number of times, and I'm sorry, but it's just not true.

Zimmer was hired in January of 2008 by the Bengals as defensive coordinator after Cincinnati had finished 27th in defense in 2007. In 2008, Zimmer's first year as coordinator, the Bengals jumped to 12th. In 2009, he was named NFL Assistant Coach of the Year as he led the Bengals to the 4th-ranked defense in the league. They've been a perennial top-10 defense ever since.

The numbers do not lie, Jim. Zimmer made an immediate impact and turned Cincinnati into a top-5 defense within two seasons -- not several years.

You're right. The numbers don't lie but the #@*%$ stats formatting at NFL.com sure tries to make it look that way! Let me explain: sometimes I forget about the backwards way the site formats stats now, at least on my browser. I don't know if this happens to anyone else but when I view stats there, the first page I view shows them in the order you'd logically expect. In other words, the best is #1 and so on. For example, when I looked this info up before I started posting about it (and I did) the 2007 Bengals defense was ranked 27th. However, when I go on to the next page and look at the defensive rankings for 2008, the site reverses the order in which teams are presented, listing the worst first. Occasionally, I forget about this because the site only started doing that in the past 6 months or so. In other words, if I'm hasty and don't look at all of the numbers, I see the Bengals defense correctly ranked at #27 in 2007 and then I see them ranked at #21 in 2008, when they were actually 12th, 29th in 2009 when they were actually 4th, etc. It's extremely frustrating because I have to remember to click to re-format the stats in logical order and I have to do it twice to get it to work. Does this happen to anyone else? Maybe my browser is outdated...

Anyway, thanks for pointing out my error. It was careless of me to make that mistake and I stand corrected about the speed with which Zimmer was able to turn Cincy's defense around. That said, I have my doubts about his ability to turn the Vikes defense around that dramatically in his first year. It's not impossible so if he does pull it off, I'll be appropriately impressed.

As for Turner, I'll take him over Bill Musgrave every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I will too but preference wasn't really the point. I have no doubt that Turner is a better offensive coordinator than Musgrave. My point was that a better offensive coordinator doesn't automatically mean a more productive offense. I think Zimmer's a better defensive coach than Frazier too. I'm just not buying the idea that these two guys are going to step in and coach the Vikings problems away this year. If they do, I'll be impressed but as I said about a thousand times last season, the Vikes had personnel/talent/experience issues. I think they've made some moves that should help that but I also think they will still have some of those issues. Personnel impacts production. You illustrated that point nicely in describing what Turner had to work with in Cleveland.

[Eli]

I have no doubt that Turner is a better offensive coordinator than Musgrave. My point was that a better offensive coordinator doesn't automatically mean a more productive offense.

Nothing is automatic. But all else being equal (and this year's offensive roster is nearly identical to last year's), I'd certainly expect the offense to be more productive with a better coordinator. Logically, I don't know what else anyone could possibly expect.

[S197]

You're right. The numbers don't lie but the #@*%$ stats formatting at NFL.com sure tries to make it look that way! Let me explain: sometimes I forget about the backwards way the site formats stats now, at least on my browser. I don't know if this happens to anyone else but when I view stats there, the first page I view shows them in the order you'd logically expect. In other words, the best is #1 and so on. For example, when I looked this info up before I started posting about it (and I did) the 2007 Bengals defense was ranked 27th. However, when I go on to the next page and look at the defensive rankings for 2008, the site reverses the order in which teams are presented, listing the worst first. Occasionally, I forget about this because the site only started doing that in the past 6 months or so. In other words, if I'm hasty and don't look at all of the numbers, I see the Bengals defense correctly ranked at #27 in 2007 and then I see them ranked at #21 in 2008, when they were actually 12th, 29th in 2009 when they were actually 4th, etc. It's extremely frustrating because I have to remember to click to re-format the stats in logical order and I have to do it twice to get it to work. Does this happen to anyone else? Maybe my browser is outdated...

Never liked NFL.com, too busy and too many clicks to get to what you're really looking for. Try this website:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/

[Mothman]

Nothing is automatic. But all else being equal (and this year's offensive roster is nearly identical to last year's), I'd certainly expect the offense to be more productive with a better coordinator. Logically, I don't know what else anyone could possibly expect.

Logically, that IS what I expect but the NFL doesn't always work logically.

I'm just trying not to count my proverbial chickens before they've hatched.

[Hunter Morrow]

Better coaching, starting our best QB instead of Ponder and Freeman. Too much worries about TCM as our outdoor road games. This is a 7 to 9 win season. Getting that action as a mild -140? Yeah, i take it. That one place at 5.5 giving -120 is the one to get. That looks juicy to me. This team made upgrades in every facet and that book has us having a worse season?

[Mothman]

Never liked NFL.com, too busy and too many clicks to get to what you're really looking for. Try this website:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/

Thanks. I actually use that site all the time for player stats, draft history, team history, etc. but for some reason, I never use it for the kind of team stats/rankings we're talking about. I don't know why... but I'll start using it for that stuff now.

[S197]

Thanks. I actually use that site all the time for player stats, draft history, team history, etc. but for some reason, I never use it for the kind of team stats/rankings we're talking about. I don't know why... but I'll start using it for that stuff now.

I do the same thing, it's only after about the third drop down menu in NFL.com that I find myself saying, "what the heck am I doing here again?!" It would probably help if I bookmarked that site...

[Mothman]

I do the same thing, it's only after about the third drop down menu in NFL.com that I find myself saying, "what the heck am I doing here again?!" It would probably help if I bookmarked that site...

LOL!

So, do the stats at NFL.com do that same "reversed order" thing for you (or do you usually bail on them and go to pro-football-reference.com before it even gets that far)? I thought it might be due to my browser because I'm using an older version of Safari but I tried it with a new version of Firefox and I get the same results.

[Eli]

I do the same thing, it's only after about the third drop down menu in NFL.com that I find myself saying, "what the heck am I doing here again?!" It would probably help if I bookmarked that site...

Better yet: (getting a bit off-topic, but...)

Many browsers have a context menu search extension or add-on. It allows you to highlight any text on a web page, right-click it and then select from a list of searches. Most sites have a global search URL, so you can use it to search sites like Wikipedia, IMDb, CNN, ESPN, Amazon ... and Pro-Football Reference.

For Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... doga?hl=en

For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... xt-search/

I use Chrome and the Context Menu Search extension. To define a right-click search for PFR, use the following string:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... TESTSEARCH

Then you can just highlight a player or team name on any web page and in two clicks pull up their stats page on PFR.

[frosted]

Better yet: (getting a bit off-topic, but...)

Many browsers have a context menu search extension or add-on. It allows you to highlight any text on a web page, right-click it and then select from a list of searches. Most sites have a global search URL, so you can use it to search sites like Wikipedia, IMDb, CNN, ESPN, Amazon ... and Pro-Football Reference.

For Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... doga?hl=en

For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... xt-search/

I use Chrome and the Context Menu Search extension. To define a right-click search for PFR, use the following string:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... TESTSEARCH

Then you can just highlight a player or team name on any web page and in two clicks pull up their stats page on PFR.

Useful, that is. Thanks for the info.!

[S197]

Better yet: (getting a bit off-topic, but...)

Many browsers have a context menu search extension or add-on. It allows you to highlight any text on a web page, right-click it and then select from a list of searches. Most sites have a global search URL, so you can use it to search sites like Wikipedia, IMDb, CNN, ESPN, Amazon ... and Pro-Football Reference.

For Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... doga?hl=en

For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... xt-search/

I use Chrome and the Context Menu Search extension. To define a right-click search for PFR, use the following string:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... TESTSEARCH

Then you can just highlight a player or team name on any web page and in two clicks pull up their stats page on PFR.

I usually set up a keyword but I don't check stats all that much so PFR wasn't one I made. Go to the webpage in question, right click on the search bar, and select "add a keyword for this search" (in Firefox, something similar in Chrome) and just choose a keyword like "pfr." Then you can just type pfr <search word> in your url box and it will pull up the page. Sounds similar to what you are using, either way sounds more efficient than what I've been doing.

[Eli]

I usually set up a keyword but I don't check stats all that much so PFR wasn't one I made. Go to the webpage in question, right click on the search bar, and select "add a keyword for this search" (in Firefox, something similar in Chrome) and just choose a keyword like "pfr." Then you can just type pfr <search word> in your url box and it will pull up the page. Sounds similar to what you are using, either way sounds more efficient than what I've been doing.

Yes, I use that too. In Chrome, it's "Edit search engines..." Chrome adds a lot of search engines automatically as it comes across search URLs on sites that you visit. Usually, the keyword will be the full domain name, and you can then edit it to a shortened form. Or, you can define your own if you know the search URL, using '%s' as the search variable.

[John_Viveiros]

Just fooling around - and quoting my own posts. Among other things, I said:

What we can't predict at all:
Continue to lose so many close games (the games they won in 2012 - tends to average out)?
Lose Peterson for part of the season again?
Lose all four staring DB's for part of the season again?
Lose Rudolph for half the season again?
Keep those guys healthy, and lose different ones?

1) Weird so far - there have been no close games. A 28 point win, followed by 23 point and 11 point losses, and then today's 13 point win. No drama at the end. Put away the defibrillators for now.
2) Sad to have guessed this one might happen.
3) Still could happen, but the defensive backfield has been... a strength of the team. When was the last time we could say that?
4) Sad to have guessed this one might happen. Again.
5) Losing Fusco is tough. Losing Cassel too. And now Teddy is gimpy.

Seriously, we're still at that stage where we could win ten, or we could watch Ponder and Asiata lead the team to four wins.

[Leafman]

Seriously, we're still at that stage where we could win ten, or we could watch Ponder and Asiata lead the team to four wins.

Definitely. Of course, every team in the NFL is in the same spot ... staying healthy, or discovering gems when replacing injured vets, is the key to ultimate success in this league.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN