Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

04 Nov 2011

Week 9 N.F.L. Matchups

Breaking news: The Chargers logo is now normal size again.

Posted by: Mike Tanier on 04 Nov 2011

25 comments, Last at 07 Nov 2011, 10:24am by Aaron Brooks Good Twin

Comments

1
by John (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:51am

Breaking news: it's now smaller (at least, smaller than Green Bay's).

7
by Kevin from Philly :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 10:45am

Losing like that on Monday Night was bound to cause some shrinkage.

19
by LionInAZ (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:20pm

Now that it's smaller, I miss the old big Charger logo. It was kind of reassuring to see it there, a bloated ball, defying explanation. An emblem of defiant nonconformity in an NFL that tries to turn every team and player into perfectly performing robots.

20
by John (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:06pm

It's still nonconformist: it's about 2 pixels smaller (diameter) than the Green Bay logo. Be reassured!

(I'm tempted to go measure each image, but not that tempted.)

2
by BJR :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:14am

In line with the fact they are going to get shellacked this weekend? Playing these Packers is never going to be a great matchup for anyone, but this week looks particularly ugly for the Chargers. A short week after an agonising loss, against a well rested opponent? Best/only pass rushers injured? Starting a rookie corner who was abused in his first career start by the Chiefs on Monday night? Against Aaron Rodgers? Sounds like a blowout to me.

3
by Keith(1) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 9:28am

The Saints' logo is larger now. It took a minute to realize it, but the shadow gives it away.

8
by andrew :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 10:46am

The large logo is a secret tip-off to professional gamblers.

4
by Eggwasp (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 9:36am

Jeez Tanier - one bad game for the Raiders with a street-clothes QB learning his way from the locker-room to the field and they are suddenly "inept"?

5
by TC (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 10:11am

uh, I think it's the Broncos who are "likeably inept" in that paragraph, because they sure aren't "formerly menacing".

16
by Whatev :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:17pm

And I'm pretty sure the Raiders were more menacing with Campbell taking the snap.

23
by Eggwasp (not verified) :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 4:16am

Raiders are now officially inept.

24
by Eggwasp (not verified) :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 4:18am

Ah, the fact the Broncos could be likeable didn't compute...

6
by bubqr :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 10:43am

Reverse jinxing of the Eagles ? I like it.

12
by chemical burn :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 1:27pm

He's given them the reverse jinx since at least the Redskins game where it really would have been reasonable to pick them.

On the other hand, the Bears have had an outrageous amount of success versus the Eagles in recent years - I always feel like the Eagles are clearly better and then the Bears pull out a close game involving last minute comebacks or goal line stands...

13
by TomC :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 2:22pm

For once that wasn't the case last year, when the Bears dominated for three quarters and only had to sweat through an onside kick attempt because Vick threaded a ridiculous TD pass to Celek through three defenders.

So where the hell do you think that Vegas line is coming from? The Bears have a better record, comparable point differential and DVOA, and they're coming off a bye week. They've clearly matched up well with the Eagles in the past few years. On a neutral site, that should add up to nearly a pick'em, maybe Eagles by 2 at most, so the line for a game in Philly should be no worse than -5.

This is not to say that there's no chance the Bears get blown out---I think that's a real possibility---but I can't imagine if you played this game 100 times the mean score would be Philly by 8 (or even 9 on some odds boards). I'm tempted to say it's all due to amateur bettors who saw last Sunday night's game and now think the Eagles are unbeatable. That would make the Bears a really smart play this week. Thank god I don't have a bookie and am too superstitious to bet on the team I root for.

15
by chemical burn :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:11pm

I agree 100% - and you didn't even touch on the fact that the bears have eaten vick's lunch in game after game. I think the eagles are always a good matchup for a smart defense in that so much of their offense relies on misdirection and deception, smart players don't get as confused and lose that crucial half a step that is the difference between shutting jackson down and having him burn you for a td...

9
by theosu :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 11:27am

Forte is 3rd overall in touches with 162 in 7 games for an average of 23.14. Ahead of him are MJD and Purple Jesus, who are both on bye this week and average 22.25 and 22.875 touches respectively. And both of whom have signed their big money contracts (one bigger than the other, admittedly).

17
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:37pm

I remember reading somewhere that receptions don't have as much of a wear-and-tear effect as carries. The study wasn't completely conclusive but a fairly strong bit of evidence - if you'll take my word for it.

It aligns fairly well with common sense: Being on the perimeter getting tackled by defensive backs seems a lot easier on the body than being leveled by MLBs and DTs.

18
by tuluse :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 6:07pm

I think that was one of the follow up articles to the curse of 370.

22
by zlionsfan :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:00pm

There's a reference to it in FO Basics:

The "Curse of 370" was expanded in Pro Football Prospectus 2006 to include seasons with 390 or more carries in the regular season and postseason combined. Research also shows that receptions don't cause a problem, only workload on the ground.

25
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 10:24am

Not many receivers have had 390 catches in a season.

10
by MCS :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 11:28am

I realize that this is a lighter, fluffier site than FO, but by my reckoning, Forte is thrid in the league in offensive touches. AP, MJD, Forte. Granted, receptions aren't as abusive as carries, but the Bears use Forte hard.

Just like Martz used to use Faulk.

11
by Nathan :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 11:37am

Should be chocolate ice cream.

14
by rk (not verified) :: Fri, 11/04/2011 - 4:06pm

Kirk Morrison's presence is cited as a reason for Buffalo's stoutness up the middle. He's pretty much special teams only at this point. Kelvin Sheppard is now starting next to Nick Barnett, and Andra Davis started the year there.

21
by Theo :: Sat, 11/05/2011 - 8:39pm

Aaaaaaaaahhh that explains the ending of "2001 a Space Odyssey"!