NFC North Over/Unders: Is Chicago Supporting Justin Fields?

NFL Preseason Week 3 - Bryan: Welcome back to Football Outsiders' penultimate over/under review! Three cardinal directions down, one to go, which means this week we get to handle the North, which we have put off for last because the Lions and Steelers play a nationally televised preseason game this Sunday and for no other reasons.

Cale: The Lions have graced televisions nationwide for the last few weeks during their run of Hard Knocks, and that's arguably some of the best press the NFC North has gotten this season. It has been an oddly quiet offseason for the division. Beyond the Davante Adams trade, the biggest story out of the NFC North has been Aaron Rodgers riding an ayahuasca ceremony to two straight MVP titles. While that's a wild story in its own right, the fact that no other news from Minnesota, Chicago, or Detroit has surpassed is is, uh, something.

Bryan: Well, let's find out if we need to alter our own perceptions of reality if we're going to find a way for one of those other clubs to break the Packers' streak of three straight division titles.

Chicago Bears (6.5)

Bryan: I have, in fact, seen worse projected starting receiver trios than Darnell Mooney, Equanimeous St. Brown, and Byron Pringle. I did have to think about it for about a half an hour, but I don't think it's the worst group in NFL history. So, good news there!

Cale: It's a testament to just how all-around bad the Bears are currently. The reports I have seen out of Bears camp have really lauded Justin Fields' preseason play thus far. So the fact that this is the receiver corps Chicago is trotting out because they had so many other areas to address emphasizes that the Bears are down bad in 2022.

Bryan: Now, I do believe in Justin Fields, so I think there's potential here for him to take over and help the Bears clear this line with ease. The problem is that the new Bears front office apparently does not believe in Justin Fields, as they seem to be starting a rebuilding effort from scratch despite already having a highly drafted quarterback prospect. It's not like Fields was Josh Rosen or something last year, and when things worked for him, they worked well. So, to help bolster his growth as we enter Year 2, the Bears have traded away Khalil Mack, have alienated Roquan Smith to the point where he's asking for a trade, plan to start a fifth-round rookie at left tackle, and have … that receiver corps to work with. Other than that, everything's coming up Fields.

Cale: I think some of the care (or lack thereof) around Fields might be just the fact that the Bears are so weak at so many positions. I mean, let's be realistic about the options they have given him, but Chicago did go out and get two free-agent receivers and drafted a third for Fields to throw to alongside Mooney. They also used most of their draft to bolster their defense and offensive line, which across the board needed work. Chicago was without a first-round pick, anyway, because the Bears traded it away to move up for Fields last year.

Whether he has the help or not, Fields is going to be on the roster next year on a cost-controlled deal. Chicago can continue to build out this roster another year while Fields works with what he's given. Is it good practice? Absolutely not. But it's one way to operate, and with Smith trying to force his way out, that's another hole that needs to be filled on a porous defense.

Bryan: Now, that does interest me. The Bears were 13th in defensive DVOA last season, and our projections have them 10th this year. Now, that assumes Smith is actually playing in Chicago, but the idea is that the Bears have traded some of their high-end players for a more smooth talent curve across the back of their defense. They added Jaquan Brisker and Kyler Gordon in the draft, meaning they can actually go into nickel occasionally as Matt Eberflus would like to do without getting immediately exposed. And while losing Mack and most of the interior line this offseason isn't ideal, you can justify each and every move Chicago has made on defense. Doesn't mean they'll all work, mind you, but at least I can see the plan on the defensive side of the ball.

Cale: I see the plan, sure, but I just don't know how that plan looks Year 1. It's a defense that is losing a lot of pieces (and potentially one more), integrating a lot of young talent while also changing things up schematically. A lot of those elements serve as force multipliers for me; I just don't have the same optimism as you or our projections in this defense taking a step forward this year.

Bryan: In my ongoing attempts to use DVOA in ways that it really, really shouldn't be used, here's a stat for you. While Fields was 32nd in passing DVOA last season, he jumps up to 13th when you look only at successful plays. Yes, it's very much "well, other than that how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" but there was upside when Fields had time to throw and receivers who could catch. His ALEX on successful plays was 2.0 and his average depth of target was 10.4 yards, both in first place by leaps and bounds—Fields played well when given time and space to air the ball out, but failed basically in every other instance. And yes, that means he had the league's worst passing DVOA on plays that failed, as the "2-yard completion on third-and-6" sort of scheme wasn't really in Chicago's playbook, while the "embarrassing sack and/or interception" was more their speed.

Maybe I'm blinded by the deep ball, but I think the combination of Eberflus' chops on defense and Fields' potential on offense will bring the Bears over this mark, if only just. It's the hardest line for me in the division, but I'll choose optimism. For now!

Cale: 6.5 wins is a low number, especially for a team playing an average schedule. Getting the NFC East could definitely inflate those numbers. I feel like taking the under here is essentially a bet against Fields, which I don't want to make. I loved him out of college and still think he's got big-time upside if he can make some steps forward in his development. That being said, the rest of this roster is bad. This isn't an offense I trust to win a shootout, and this isn't a defense I trust to win a low-scoring bout.

If I was placing this bet, I'd wait to see Chicago play Cleveland in their dress rehearsal on August 27. I need to get a sense of what this team actually looks like—even if it's a quarter of a meaningless preseason game—just to see how it is going to function on a base level. There are so many slow-plays for the future and "let's see if this works" short-term roster calls for me to make an educated guess.

That's the thing about preseason over/unders: you have to make the bets before you see them play real football.

Bryan: They're very particular that way. I'd much prefer if we could see all 18 weeks and then place our bets, but I'm still waiting for a sportsbook to offer that option.

Detroit Lions (6.5)

Bryan: I have yet to decide whether or not Dan Campbell is a good coach, but I'm definitely a believer that Dan Campbell is a fun coach. In Week 8, can we cancel the action in the Lions-Dolphins game and just have Campbell and Mike McDaniel have dueling press conferences?

Cale: He's definitely a fun coach—he got his own section in the Football Outsiders Almanac 2021 Year in Quotes after having the Lions job for all of three months. But I think he's a good coach too. I keep thinking about that game against the Rams last year. Campbell was willing to pull out all the stops to get an advantage against a way better opponent. Multiple onside kicks in the fourth quarter, going for it on fourth-and-long … not only is that good process to try and take down a superior opponent, but trusting your team to take on that risk is great for team chemistry in itself.

Well, it's at least better for team morale than whatever Matt Patricia did last time around. Players heading for free agency after his first season popped champagne in the locker room on the last day because they knew they'd never have to play for him again. We have come a long way, Detroit.

Bryan: Yeah, Patricia is arguably the worst coach in Lions history, and that's saying a lot considering Lions history.

Campbell does seem to have the Lions pointed in the right direction, but they were so far from contention by the end of the Patricia era that it could take years just to claw their way back to mediocrity. That being said, I like that they gave so many snaps to rookies during their "feisty terrible team" year last season, and the extra development time given to Amon-Ra St. Brown, Penei Sewell, Alim McNeill, and so on and so forth really did pay dividends. Heck, St. Brown was a regular in the Loser League at the beginning of last season before becoming a top-20ish receiver by year's end. Arrow pointing up, there.

This year's rookie class looks strong too. Aiden Hutchinson was my favorite player in this draft class, which I know isn't exactly a reach for the guy picked second overall. And I have high hopes for Jameson Williams when he gets healthy. In fact, between Williams, St. Brown, D.J. Chark, and T.J. Hockenson, there's some significant upside for this receiver corps. It's just too bad it's Jared Goff being the one asked to unlock them.

Cale: "Unlock" is the key word there. Goff is a serviceable stopgap. He's a known commodity, and he's not elevating anyone's ceilings. But Goff also finished 20th in both DVOA and DYAR last year with a worse skill position group. I recognize the issues. If there's anything short of a perfect pocket, he drops way down. Goff was the worst passer in the league outside of the pocket. He also posted a -32.6% DVOA on third and fourth downs, and his aDOT plummeted to 6.6 yards once he left Los Angeles. But a quarterback on the fringe of the top 20 is still a tolerable quarterback! In the short term, at least.

With a better group of players around him, hovering a notch or two under league average might not be all that bad, either. The Lions don't have Super Bowl aspirations right now, they just need confirmation that what they are building is showing results. If Goff can just hold water, I surprisingly like the upside of this team.

Bryan: I don't like the upside of this team, but I do like Goff as being the "eh, good enough" player at quarterback while everything else builds and develops. I know what Goff did in Los Angeles, but I do feel that having Goff kind of gives Detroit a hard cap on how good they can be. But I also doubt he's going to be some kind of massive disaster, so I'd phrase that optimism as liking the high floor of this team. I think they're going to continue their trend from last season of being a tough out, only at a slightly higher level—going from jobber to jobber to the stars, to steal a wrestling concept here. That means I'm going with the over, and I'm more confident about it than I was with Chicago.

Cale: Detroit has one of the easiest schedules in the league, which makes this call easier for me. I just like what Detroit is building right now. If you look at their schedule, a lot of the teams they play are in varying stages of rebuild: Jacksonville, Chicago, the Jets, Carolina, Seattle. For the most part, I like the Lions' process better than almost any of theirs. That, plus Campbell's commitment to try and win games his team shouldn't, makes the over an easy call for me. Kneecaps for everyone!

Green Bay Packers (11)

Bryan: The Last Dance ended with a familiar stumble, and now Aaron Rodgers and company are refusing to leave the floor. Last Dance II: Electric Boogaloo. The Revenge. Cruise Control. The Squeakquel.

Cale: This offseason has been a Long Strange Trip for Green Bay. After Adams opted to star in Dude, Where's My Carr?, the Packers were left Fear(ful) and Loathing in Green Bay … OK I'll stop.

We already addressed what losing a top receiver could look like for a team in our rundown of Kansas City's over/under, but there are some major differences in the two cases.

First: Rodgers and Adams played together much longer than Patrick Mahomes and Tyreek Hill had. There was a very established rapport there, so much so that Rodgers was beginning to receive criticism following playoff games for staring down Adams, hoping his longtime target could go out and make a play. The idea that losing Adams could actually open up the offense feels more tangible in Green Bay than it does in Kansas City.

Second: While Kansas City pumped quality fill-ins to the wide receiver position, signing Marquez Valdes-Scantling and JuJu Smith-Schuster and drafting Skyy Moore, the Packers in my opinion did not do enough to fill the void left by Adams. Their biggest free-agent receiver signing was journeyman and former Chiefs wideout Sammy Watkins, and their big draft splash at receiver is recovering from a minor knee scope. If anyone could make this receiver corps work, it's Aaron Rodgers, but I'd posit that the gap between these receivers and the Bears' isn't as big as you'd think.

Bryan: I do know that the Packers fanbase is going crazy for Romeo Doubs, who has had his share of highlight-reel plays in both practice and preseason games, but you're right—there's a lot of uncertainty there. And considering how much Rodgers likes HIS guys at receiver, to the point where trading for Randall Cobb was a whole thing last offseason, I think it really does matter how quickly Rodgers warms up to a plethora of new targets and who he's going to trust when the chips are down now that Adams has left the floor. There's also the issue of David Bakhtiari's never-ending recovery—at time of writing, he still hasn't practiced. (Ed. Note: Bakhtiari finally took part in individual drills on Sunday.) At least Elgton Jenkins is back and looks to be at full strength, but there are more question marks here than we're used to seeing on a Packers offense. I'm fairly sure "we have Aaron Rodgers" is enough to smooth those question marks over, at least in the divisional race, but there are cracks in the foundation.

The betting public seems to be very high on the Packers defense, but we have them just 19th in our projections, as there are a lot of ifs here. Two first-round rookies in Quay Walker and Devonte Wyatt being asked to play major roles off the bat, questions at cornerback behind Jaire Alexander, and so on and so forth. I think that the question marks all have potential answers, but it feels a lot to me like Green Bay lined up everything and took their best shot last year but fell short. Maybe their window isn't closed, but it does feel like it's closing.

I don't think I can talk myself into anyone else winning the North, but I can talk myself into going under on this whole-number line. It feels like 10-7 is a more reasonable outcome than 12-5 for this particular Packers unit, and I can't really bring myself to the altered state of consciousness that would have me group them with the tippy-top contenders. Maybe Rodgers can sort me out there.

Cale: Having that whole number to push with makes this feel a lot more comfortable. I'm taking the under too. In a division this easy, any other year I'd hammer this over. There's just a lot of change in that Green Bay air. The receiver corps isn't up to snuff, and while I'd hang my hat on Aaron Jones and A.J. Dillon, the health of the offensive line is a concern. I'm high on the defense, but you're also right to raise all those questions. It's tough to bet against a team with Rodgers at the helm, but who knows if that's enough for the Packers to boast one of the best records in football?

Minnesota Vikings (9)

Bryan: Our projections really do love the Vikings. We have them 10th in DVOA and eighth in projected wins. Vegas is not so kind. They have the 14th-best Super Bowl odds at +3500, basically at the cutoff between real contenders and pretenders. They're -105 to miss the playoffs in Vegas, while we have them making the postseason 59.7% of the time.

It's a bit odd that we have Minnesota as favorites to make the playoffs after two consecutive losing seasons, which brought about a coaching change. Mike Zimmer was one of the longer established coaches in the league; Kevin O'Connell comes from the very highly regarded "find someone who knows Sean McVay" school of coaching searches. Going from a defensive-first coach such as Zimmer to a McVay disciple would indicate this would be a transitional year. But nope, the model loves 'em!

Cale: At least part of that probably rides on their projected ninth-best offensive DVOA. I think the pieces this Vikings team has in place, at least offensively, will help smooth the transition over. O'Connell can finally be the guy to unlock this offense with all the skill they have on the roster. Justin Jefferson has already called his shot, claiming he'll be the best wide receiver in the league. That's really calling your shot, but with the talent both in this receiving room and among the running backs, O'Connell could be the thing that finally makes it all click. Kirk Cousins is just that: Kirk Cousins. You don't need a lot to push this offense over the top. You're not getting mind-blowing, ceiling-raising production out of Cousins, but he has finished top-10 in both DVOA and DYAR each of the last three years. Finding a scheme that could work from a McVay disciple could just be the final push this offense needs. I don't hate putting a Coach of the Year bet on O'Connell; nothing material has changed beyond head coach. New thing equals reason for new result.

Bryan: There's a strange amount of weight being placed on the reunion of O'Connell and Kirk Cousins. I see that brought up a lot, but they worked together for one year as quarterback coach in 2017 before Cousins left for Minnesota, and that was, by DVOA, the worst year of Cousins' career. It's just weird how much focus I have seen put on that, from The Athletic to NFL Network to the smoldering remains of Sports Illustrated. I guess you have to find storylines somewhere.

Cale: The 18th-place DVOA finish isn't great, but I can understand why it happened when the top two target leaders for Washington that year were Jamison Crowder and Josh Doctson. Plus, it's Washington. You have seen the graphic of every good, young head coach working on the staff during those years. That franchise knows a thing or two about wasted potential.

Bryan: I really do hate these whole-number lines. A 9-8 finish and a spot at the bottom of the wild-card race seems just about right for these Vikings. I like the potential of O'Connell and the McVay system coming into Minnesota. I like the addition of Za'Darius Smith on defense and the fit by switching from Zimmer's system to Ed Donatell's 3-4 front. Maybe it's just a case of shaking up mostly old ingredients and displaying it in a new form—Malibu Stacy's got a New Hat! syndrome—but I kind of like the Vikings to lurk around this year. I guess I'll go over, because if the Packers do go under, those wins have to go somewhere, right? But that is a very ambivalent over from me.

Cale: I'm more firmly optimistic than you are on this. I think this is the shake-up the Vikings offense needed to reach that next tier of production. The front seven is solid, and keeping things schematically similar under Donatell should soften some of the growing pains this defense may otherwise go through. Not only do I like the over here, I think the Vikings have a real shot to win the NFC North outright.

A parlay on the Vikings over, division win, and O'Connell COTY is not something I'd actually attach my name to, but it feels like it's within the realm of reasonable outcomes. It almost logically works like a domino effect in my head: If the Vikings hit the over, they would only need one or two more games above that to likely win the division, and if they win the division, O'Connell likely gets the credit! It's the "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" for degenerates and Vikings fans alike!