2nd Best AFC Team in 2018? Jacksonville Jaguars

I remember saying Oakland would be 7-9 win team last year bc of a certain trend and Pitt/Carolina fall into it this year.
Basically if you're winning a lot of game by a single score or less you're due to regress the following season in some cases.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

I remember saying Oakland would be 7-9 win team last year bc of a certain trend and Pitt/Carolina fall into it this year.
Basically if you're winning a lot of game by a single score or less you're due to regress the following season in some cases.

Click to expand...

The Raiders regressed mostly because their QB got injured early and never really got back on track*. There's really no need to make it more complicated than that. It wasn't a crystal ball "single score or less" regression. Carr got hurt in the second half of this team's 4th game. To that point, and counting that game, he had a QB rating of 100 or better in 3 of 4. After his injury, he missed one game, and then only had a QB rating of 100 or better in 2 of his final 11 games, and his team wasn't losing the one score games they'd won the year before, because they weren't even keeping it to within one score. Two of their first 3 losses were by one score (that includes the game Carr had to leave due to injury), but only 1 of the last 7 (6 under Carr) were by one score.

Prior to injury, Carr's QB ratings:
114.3
136.6
52.9
100.0

After his return from injury, he had QB ratings of:
67.5
71.2
68.2
60.1
48.1

making up 5 of his 11 starts. In the team's last 4 games, all losses after the team sat at 6-6, his QB ratings were:

60.1
84.4
48.1
91.8

and his passing yardage totals were

211
171
140
243

In 2016, Carr had only 2 games with a QB rating under 80, and one of those was 79.3, and 9 games with a QB rating over 90. So the consistency was much better, and the level of QB play was higher.

If Carr is 2016 Carr, the Raiders are a team to watch.
If Carr is 217 Carr, the Raiders are a team that will flounder.


*And, interestingly, the Carr situation mirrors what happened with Crabtree and his catch % change before and after his chest injury in week 3, which gives you a 1-2 combo of key offensive players who weren't the same after getting injured in the first 1/4 of the season.

Deus Irae said:

The Raiders regressed mostly because their QB got injured early and never really got back on track*. There's really no need to make it more complicated than that. It wasn't a crystal ball "single score or less" regression. Carr got hurt in the second half of this team's 4th game. To that point, and counting that game, he had a QB rating of 100 or better in 3 of 4. After his injury, he missed one game, and then only had a QB rating of 100 or better in 2 of his final 11 games, and his team wasn't losing the one score games they'd won the year before, because they weren't even keeping it to within one score. Two of their first 3 losses were by one score (that includes the game Carr had to leave due to injury), but only 1 of the last 7 (6 under Carr) were by one score.

Prior to injury, Carr's QB ratings:
114.3
136.6
52.9
100.0

After his return from injury, he had QB ratings of:
67.5
71.2
68.2
60.1
48.1

making up 5 of his 11 starts. In the team's last 4 games, all losses after the team sat at 6-6, his QB ratings were:

60.1
84.4
48.1
91.8

and his passing yardage totals were

211
171
140
243

In 2016, Carr had only 2 games with a QB rating under 80, and one of those was 79.3, and 9 games with a QB rating over 90. So the consistency was much better, and the level of QB play was higher.

If Carr is 2016 Carr, the Raiders are a team to watch.
If Carr is 217 Carr, the Raiders are a team that will flounder.


*And, interestingly, the Carr situation mirrors what happened with Crabtree and his catch % change before and after his chest injury in week 3, which gives you a 1-2 combo of key offensive players who weren't the same after getting injured in the first 1/4 of the season.

Click to expand...

2-2 with Carr. Terrible pass/3rd down def. They we're due to regress.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

2-2 with Carr. Terrible pass/3rd down def. They we're due to regress.

Click to expand...

I already dealt with this in the earlier post. You're doubling down on a false premise. That's your privilege.

Return to this in statement in January when i look like a genius.

The Jaguars will win less games than the Colts in 2018 who most people have as the 32nd ranked team in the NFL right now.

They played against 2 backup QBs in Division last year and still only won 10 games.

Being a good team one year does not mean the team will be good the next year. Especially, for a team that has been as erratic as the Jaguars. They are very talented, but they have a lot to prove.

ScottishPatriots said:

Return to this in statement in January when i look like a genius.

The Jaguars will win less games than the Colts in 2018 who most people have as the 32nd ranked team in the NFL right now.

They played against 2 backup QBs in Division last year and still only won 10 games.

Click to expand...

Their schedule is also murderous. At least as of right now.

Deus Irae said:

I already dealt with this in the earlier post. You're doubling down on a false premise. That's your privilege.

Click to expand...

Never mentioned their defense at all. You're focusing on the regression trend whereas I'm just using that as part of my reasoning.

And not for nothing Oakland regressed.

And if you look at Pitt & Carolina focusing on more than a trend their likely to win less than last year.

Goodness, even when you're right, people want to argue 27 pages deep.

Nunchucks said:

Being a good team one year does not mean the team will be good the next year. Especially, for a team that has been as erratic as the Jaguars. They are very talented, but they have a lot to prove.

Click to expand...

I live by this. Actually it's week to week.

How you played certain teams one year means nothing for the following year or game.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

Never mentioned their defense at all. You're focusing on the regression trend whereas I'm just using that as part of my reasoning.

Click to expand...

No, I focused on the regression trend because you were using it despite it not being applicable.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

And not for nothing Oakland regressed.

Click to expand...

Clearly. They went from a 12 win team to a 6 win team. The question was "why", not "if".

BaconGrundleCandy said:

And if you look at Pitt & Carolina focusing on more than a trend their likely to win less than last year.

Click to expand...

Pitt only lost 3 games last season. Prior to last season, they hadn't lost 3 games or fewer since 2004. Of course they're likely to lose more than that this year.
Carolina is an up and down team, having sub .500 records alternating with double digit win seasons over the last six years. "Likely" is debatable, but it's certainly not going to be a surprise if they win fewer games.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

Goodness, even when you're right, people want to argue 27 pages deep.

Click to expand...

You weren't right in your response to my post.