The Bears are 2 years away

pseudonym

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jan 11, 2014
Posts:
7,277
Liked Posts:
4,665
Location:
Chicago
Two years from competing? Probably. This year SHOULD be a bit step forward, and depending on how well the FA/draft works out, we should be pushing towards a .500 record. Then NEXT year with another FA/draft we can realistically talk about competing, winning the division, playoffs, etc. This year with AR probably gone, IDK...could be a Cinderella story here, but I'm not holding my breath.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
What your pee brain fails to conceptualize is that losing in these one score games it not just a product of luck. That is the part that continues to escape you.

Bad teams lose one score games. Fact.
How do they stop losing one score games?
They get better.

The NFL has put in place a system of parity. Bad teams get higher draft picks, an easier schedule, and quite often (as in the Bears case this year) have more cap space the following year. Likewise, good teams have harder schedules, lower draft picks, and quite often lose players (witness the Eagles this year).

You can not ignore this and it plays a large factor in this "alleged regression to the mean".

A true regression to the mean implies that the results are luck based, and conditions are static.

And yes, you really are that stupid.

No dumbass. You have no way of quantifying how much is luck and how much is them being bad as bad teams can be unlucky too. You are just harping on the bad team element because it is the Bears and you are biased.

The articles I linked already made the point that some of the one score losses are in fact due to the team just being bad and then attempts to adjust for that. It still determined that bad teams still get unlucky and there is still a regression towards the mean.

Every argument you have made is already addressed in the data I sent. You just failed to read and comprehend it. LMFAO at you thinking you are the only one that had thought about this.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
No dumbass. You have no way of quantifying how much is luck and how much is them being bad as bad teams can be unlucky too. You are just harping on the bad team element because it is the Bears and you are biased.

The articles I linked already made the point that some of the one score losses are in fact due to the team just being bad and then attempts to adjust for that. It still determined that bad teams still get unlucky and there is still a regression towards the mean.

Every argument you have made is already addressed in the data I sent. You just failed to read and comprehend it. LMFAO at you thinking you are the only one that had thought about this.
No dumbass. You have no way of quantifying how much is them being a bad team and how much is "luck". Dropping passes is not luck, it is being bad.

RTM is a statistical phenomenon that occurs when repeated measurements are made on the same subject or unit of observation. It happens because values are observed with random error. By random error we mean a non-systematic variation in the observed values around a true mean (e.g. random measurement error, or random fluctuations in a subject). Systematic error, where the observed values are consistently biased, is not the cause of RTM


If the subject (team) changes, you can not claim RTM. The data set is flawed and rendered invalid.
 
Last edited:

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
No dumbass. You have no way of quantifying how much is them being a bad team and how much is "luck". Dropping passes is not luck, it is being bad.

You cant be this dumb. Every WR drops passes. Statistically dropped passes are in fact unlucky. Mooney had just one official drop this year stupid so no it was not because he was bad.

Yes we have no way of quantifying it exactly which is why I am free to think they will regress towards the mean and you are to think they wont. The only issue is your blatant bias where your opinion on regression changes based on whether you are talking Bears or Lions hence why you have no credibility.

The question was only a comparison of the respective offenses, The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

I think that you're going to be disappointed in Goff and as good as Sewel likely is, will regret taking him instead of Fields.

I don't think its quite that simple. Any regret on this would largely be dependent on how the eventual QB the Lions do draft in 2022 or 2023 pans out.

Here you are fully believing in luck and regression when the goal is to shit on the Bears D. So you arent fooling anyone.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
You cant be this dumb. Every WR drops passes. Statistically dropped passes are in fact unlucky. Mooney had just one official drop this year stupid so no it was not because he was bad.

Yes we have no way of quantifying it exactly which is why I am free to think they will regress towards the mean and you are to think they wont. The only issue is your blatant bias where your opinion on regression changes based on whether you are talking Bears or Lions hence why you have no credibility.
It has nothing to do with Bias, yes, the Lions were a bad team two years ago. No denying that. What is different is the Lions exhibited an upward curve, improvement as the year progressed. The Bears did not. The Bears actually exhibited the opposite, as the year progressed, they got worse.

Yes we have no way of quantifying it exactly which is why I am free to think

The fact that you have no way of quantifying it is exactly why you are wrong. Everything I have said undeniably effects the results. Therefore a RTM does not exist because the results are influenced by more factors than just random luck.

You are trying to argue that the Bears were just "more unlucky" and I am saying no, they had the same amount of bad luck, but they were more influenced by being a bad team. IE. when bad luck strikes a bad team, they do not recover. When Bad luck strikes a good team, they recover. Because, as you say, every WR drops passes. That would include the teams the Bears lost these one loss games too.
 
Last edited:

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
It has nothing to do with Bias, yes, the Lions were a bad team two years ago. No denying that. What is different is the Lions exhibited an upward curve, improvement as the year progressed. The Bears did not. The Bears actually exhibited the opposite, as the year progressed, they got worse.

Yes we have no way of quantifying it exactly which is why I am free to think

The fact that you have no way of quantifying it is exactly why you are wrong. Everything I have said undeniably effects the results. Therefore a RTM does not exist because the results are influenced by more factors than just random luck.

You are trying to argue that the Bears were just "more unlucky" and I am saying no, they had the same amount of bad luck, but they were more influenced by being a bad team. Because, as you say, every WR drops passes. That would include the teams the Bears lost these one loss games too.

Lol you are full of shit. There is nothing in statistics that claims regression is linear so your upward curve nonsense is irrelevant.
The question was only a comparison of the respective offenses, The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

I think that you're going to be disappointed in Goff and as good as Sewel likely is, will regret taking him instead of Fields.

I don't think its quite that simple. Any regret on this would largely be dependent on how the eventual QB the Lions do draft in 2022 or 2023 pans out.
As long as the OP want's to post Detroit Lions pages, here is one I am sure he will enjoy:

Chicago Bears
Week 1: vs. Green Bay Packers - Win
Week 2: @ Denver Broncos - Loss
Week 3: @ Washington Redskins - Win
Week 4: vs. Minnesota Vikings - Loss
Week 5: @ Oakland Raiders (London) - Win
Week 7: vs. New Orleans Saints - Loss
Week 8: vs. Los Angeles Chargers - Loss
Week 9: @ Philadelphia Eagles - Loss
Week 10: vs. Detroit Lions - Win
Week 11: @ Los Angeles Rams - Loss
Week 12: vs. New York Giants - Win
Week 13: @ Detroit Lions - Loss
Week 14: vs. Dallas Cowboys - Win
Week 15: @ Green Bay Packers - Loss
Week 16: vs. Kansas City Chiefs - Loss
Week 17: @ Minnesota Vikings - Loss

Final record: 6-10

Reasoning: Oh boy, I can’t wait for Bears fans to ‘roast’ me for this prediction. “But we were 12-4!” they will say. “Trubisky is improving!” they will say. “Another year in Nagy’s offense!” they will say.

I, for one, say otherwise. This is a team primed for regression, and serious regression at that. The 2018 Chicago Bears were a good team, I won’t deny that. However, I doubt that this success will continue in 2019. Their defense was beyond outstanding last season, and a lot of their wins are primarily due to them smothering opposing offenses. As seen with Jacksonville the year before, repeating such an impressive defensive campaign is extremely unlikely. They led the league with 27 interceptions, five of which were returned for touchdown—for reference, the last time a team had more than 27 interceptions in a season was Seattle in 2013. Despite all of those picks, Chicago had a turnover ratio of just +12 last season—still good for third in the league, but well below what it could have been. Teams that win the turnover battle tend to win games, which the Bears benefited from last season. However, turnovers are an extremely volatile and unpredictable stat, and there is little chance they replicate their 2018 totals.

Fumbles and interceptions were a huge problem for Mitchell Trubisky last season, along with being an actual NFL quarterback. I will give him credit for his rushing ability, and it remains his best trait. However, decision making continues to plague Trubisky, and he was fortunate not to have a higher interception total. He was one of PFF’s lowest ranked quarterbacks, and for good reason: the Bears won games despite him, not because of him. It still floors me that he made the Pro Bowl over Matt Ryan.

The Bears did not improve over the course of the offseason either. They lost Adrian Amos and Bryce Callahan, opting to replace them with Ha Ha Clinton-Dix and Buster Skrine, both of whom are significant downgrades. Coupled with the departure of defensive coordinator Vic Fangio, I doubt that the Bears defense will reach their 2018 heights.

Their offense is also lacking. They feature essentially no running game, jettisoning Jordan Howard (whom I believe to be underrated) and replacing him with their first pick in the draft, third rounder David Montgomery, whom I was not a fan of as a prospect. Tarik Cohen remains an excellent change-of-pace running back, but his strength is receiving, not rushing. Allen Robinson, Anthony Miller, Taylor Gabriel, and Trey Burton are good receiving options, but they lack the quarterback to exploit them.

In terms of schedule, I expect the Bears to finally get punished for Trubisky’s lackluster play and mistakes. I do not expect their defense to bail them out as many times as they did last season. The Fangio’s Broncos in Denver should be a challenge, and the Vikings have a good chance of sweeping. As well, they have the misfortune of facing the New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Rams, both of whom boast excellent offenses and defenses.

A lot of things went the Bears’ way in 2018 (aside from some Audible Dongs), and a regression seems imminent. Chicago really needs Trubisky to develop into a serviceable quarterback this season, or they could be looking at a last place finish in the NFC North.

Isnt it funny how regression is real when you are using it to raise doubts about the Bears but then not real when someone is using it to say they can improve?

Again it has everything to do with bias.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
You cant be this dumb. Every WR drops passes. Statistically dropped passes are in fact unlucky. Mooney had just one official drop this year stupid so no it was not because he was bad.

Yes we have no way of quantifying it exactly which is why I am free to think they will regress towards the mean and you are to think they wont. The only issue is your blatant bias where your opinion on regression changes based on whether you are talking Bears or Lions hence why you have no credibility.



Here you are fully believing in luck and regression when the goal is to shit on the Bears D. So you arent fooling anyone.
Oh for Christ sakes, now you are really grasping at straws, pointing out that players regress as they age is far from anything you are trying to do here. That isn't even close to an apples to apples comparison.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
Oh for Christ sakes, now you are really grasping at straws, pointing out that players regress as they age is far from anything you are trying to do here. That isn't even close to an apples to apples comparison.

No stupid. You already said regression is about luck. One doesnt get less lucky as they age. So by your own argument players being worse as they age is not regression it is their skills declining as they age.

So again this is the whole problem. Your argument changes completely due to bias.

So make up your mind jackass and stop changing your regression argument based on what helps you bash the Bears.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
Lol you are full of shit. There is nothing in statistics that claims regression is linear so your upward curve nonsense is irrelevant.


Isnt it funny how regression is real when you are using it to raise doubts about the Bears but then not real when someone is using it to say they can improve?

Again it has everything to do with bias.
Except those weren't my words at all, for starters, I merely copied and pasted someone else's prediction on what the Bears record would be in 2018.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between regression, and the term "Regression to the mean". The two are not synonymous
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
No stupid. You already said regression is about luck. One doesnt get less lucky as they age. So by your own argument players being worse as they age is not regression it is their skills declining as they age.

So again this is the whole problem. Your argument changes completely due to bias.
I said regression to the mean is luck based.
Just plain regression can be used for any variety of reasons,
Yisus, what a dumbass.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
Except those weren't my words at all, for starters, I merely copied and pasted someone else's prediction on what the Bears record would be in 2018.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between regression, and the term "Regression to the mean". The two are not synonymous

I said regression to the mean is luck based.
Just plain regression can be used for any variety of reasons,
Yisus, what a dumbass.

You said they were lucky and would regress. That is clearly you claiming regression towards the mean. Otherwise you would not have said they were lucky.

The question was only a comparison of the respective offenses, The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

I think that you're going to be disappointed in Goff and as good as Sewel likely is, will regret taking him instead of Fields.

I don't think its quite that simple. Any regret on this would largely be dependent on how the eventual QB the Lions do draft in 2022 or 2023 pans out.

This is clearly saying the Bears got lucky and would regress towards the mean. Stop trying to lie. When people talk about a D getting a bunch of turnovers and that they will regress they are clearly arguing that some element of the turnover number is luck based. That is what makes it volatile and unpredictable. SMH!
 
Last edited:

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
You said they were lucky and would regress. That is clearly you claiming regression towards the mean. Otherwise you would not have said they were lucky.



This is clearly saying the Bears got lucky and would regress towards the mean. Stop trying to lie. When people talk about a D getting a bunch of turnovers and that they will regress they are clearly arguing that some element of the turnover number is luck based. That is what makes it volatile and unpredictable. SMH!
The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

Newsflash, as players age, they regress. What is funny is you keep linking this when it is exactly what happened. I never said luck didn't exist.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

Newsflash, as players age, they regress. What is funny is you keep linking this when it is exactly what happened. I never said luck didn't exist.

Lol. Dude you are still talking regressing towards the mean when you invoke luck. Whenever you talk of luck and regression you are invoking regression towards the mean.
I, for one, say otherwise. This is a team primed for regression, and serious regression at that. The 2018 Chicago Bears were a good team, I won’t deny that. However, I doubt that this success will continue in 2019. Their defense was beyond outstanding last season, and a lot of their wins are primarily due to them smothering opposing offenses. As seen with Jacksonville the year before, repeating such an impressive defensive campaign is extremely unlikely. They led the league with 27 interceptions, five of which were returned for touchdown—for reference, the last time a team had more than 27 interceptions in a season was Seattle in 2013. Despite all of those picks, Chicago had a turnover ratio of just +12 last season—still good for third in the league, but well below what it could have been. Teams that win the turnover battle tend to win games, which the Bears benefited from last season. However, turnovers are an extremely volatile and unpredictable stat, and there is little chance they replicate their 2018 totals.

Luck in a statistical sense just means results that are outliers or go against what one would expect based on the odds.

Whenever you talk about the volatility of turnovers as the bold does then you are talking about luck and thus regression towards the mean because you are saying the high amount of turnovers were unusual ie lucky and that it will regress.

So again all you are doing is cherry picking when you chose to believe in regression. The concept isnt dependent on your hatred of the Bears.

And to be clear if a team or player consistently over/underperforms the odds or expectations then that is when one would argue that perhaps it is not luck but rather skill or lack thereof. You see this in baseball a lot given the large sample sizes as generally speaking a really high BABIP is considered evidence of luck but if a player consistently has a high BABIP then the discussions shifts to whether his BABIP is the result of his skill.
 
Last edited:

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873
Lol. Dude you are still talking regressing towards the mean when you invoke luck. Whenever you talk of luck and regression you are invoking regression towards the mean.


Luck in a statistical sense just means results that are outliers or go against what one would expect based on the odds.

Whenever you talk about the volatility of turnovers as the bold does then you are talking about luck and thus regression towards the mean because you are saying the high amount of turnovers were unusual ie lucky and that it will regress.

So again all you are doing is cherry picking when you chose to believe in regression. The concept isnt dependent on your hatred of the Bears.

And to be clear if a team or player consistently over/underperforms the odds or expectations then that is when one would argue that perhaps it is not luck but rather skill or lack thereof. You see this in baseball a lot given the large sample sizes as generally speaking a really high BABIP is considered evidence of luck but if a player consistently has a high BABIP then the discussions shifts to whether his BABIP is the result of his skill.
what you keep quoting and highlighting are not my words, so I am not sure your point.
 

Spitta Andretti

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
9,792
Liked Posts:
14,400
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
i wonder where the upward curve was when lions started 1 and 6

probably the same place ncockneto disappears to
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
what you keep quoting and highlighting are not my words, so I am not sure your point.


Your post one 160. The below are your words.
The question was only a comparison of the respective offenses, The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

I think that you're going to be disappointed in Goff and as good as Sewel likely is, will regret taking him instead of Fields.

I don't think its quite that simple. Any regret on this would largely be dependent on how the eventual QB the Lions do draft in 2022 or 2023 pans out.


Post 29. You posted it you own it. At no point did you take issue with their discussion of regression like you are now. So whether you wrote it is irrelevent. What it sures is your will only fight about regression when it is being used to be optimistic about the Bears. When it is being used to shit on the Bears you are happy to post it.

So again you are just being biased. We all know if one had said this about the Lions or to explain why the Bears would ne worse you would be happy to buy into it.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
20,574
Liked Posts:
4,873

Your post one 160. The below are your words.



Post 29. You posted it you own it. At no point did you take issue with their discussion of regression like you are now. So whether you wrote it is irrelevent. What it sures is your will only fight about regression when it is being used to be optimistic about the Bears. When it is being used to shit on the Bears you are happy to post it.

So again you are just being biased. We all know if one had said this about the Lions or to explain why the Bears would ne worse you would be happy to buy into it.
"Regression to the mean" is a term that deals with purely luck based circumstance.

"regression" is a word that can be used in many different contexts.


the fact that you found an old post of mine in which I copied and pasted an article sorely for the purpose of showing the expected win/loss rate prediction for the upcoming season that used the word "regression" is hardly condemning.

My argument stands and your counter argument is weak, as always.
 

doctorbear

Well-known member
Joined:
Jan 11, 2014
Posts:
2,726
Liked Posts:
1,973
T
Lmao yes in fantasy land of your brane the bears weren’t actually the last place team in the nfl, they were really a 6-11 team.

Lmao
The bears are the only team that improved this offseason and everyone else stayed the same
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,952
Liked Posts:
41,743
"Regression to the mean" is a term that deals with purely luck based circumstance.

"regression" is a word that can be used in many different contexts.


the fact that you found an old post of mine in which I copied and pasted an article sorely for the purpose of showing the expected win/loss rate prediction for the upcoming season that used the word "regression" is hardly condemning.

My argument stands and your counter argument is weak, as always.

The first post was not a you copy and pasting. You clearly said Bears were lucky and would regress.
The question was only a comparison of the respective offenses, The reason you finished ahead in the division was a little bit of luck, and the fact the Lions D sucked ass. And this year the Bears D will regress even further, having lost their best CB while retaining Jimmy G (still a head scratcher to me), and quite possibly further regression from Hicks/Mack/Quinn.

I think that you're going to be disappointed in Goff and as good as Sewel likely is, will regret taking him instead of Fields.

I don't think its quite that simple. Any regret on this would largely be dependent on how the eventual QB the Lions do draft in 2022 or 2023 pans out.

The first paragraph is your words. Again you are being biased.
 

Top