Predict the 2026 record - your realistic expectations
- Viper
- Posts: 1,804
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:39 pm
- Has given High Fives: 811 times
- Received High Fives: 945 times
Predict the 2026 record - your realistic expectations
With Mendoza needing time to adjust, an unproven O line and what I consider average receivers, I’m not really expecting to light it up on offense.
Defensively, we should be at least middle of the pack. That should go a long ways in helping stack wins.
Having said that, we are improved across the board yet still more work to do. I would predict we have 6 wins this year, double what we had last year. If Pete can manage 3 last year, I have faith with a better coaching staff we can do better. If we can beat the teams we’re supposed to plus staying close in the 4th quarter against better talent, we have a punchers chance in some of those.
Personally, at least another year or two to make some real noise if we nail FA and the draft.
Defensively, we should be at least middle of the pack. That should go a long ways in helping stack wins.
Having said that, we are improved across the board yet still more work to do. I would predict we have 6 wins this year, double what we had last year. If Pete can manage 3 last year, I have faith with a better coaching staff we can do better. If we can beat the teams we’re supposed to plus staying close in the 4th quarter against better talent, we have a punchers chance in some of those.
Personally, at least another year or two to make some real noise if we nail FA and the draft.
- These users gave a High Five to the author Viper for the post (total 2):
- chucker, Rabidraider
- LayneStaley
- Posts: 4,424
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:29 pm
- Has given High Fives: 338 times
- Received High Fives: 863 times
8-9 wins and not last in the west.
- These users gave a High Five to the author LayneStaley for the post:
- Curay7680
- raiders93
- Posts: 5,060
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:34 pm
- Has given High Fives: 8 times
- Received High Fives: 256 times
It’s always about the price and yes I’m sure they were pretty happy with what they (thought they) were getting from Baltimore. I’d argue it was a more lucrative trade than even the 2 1sts would lead you to believe and probably telling about how firm we are on the asking price.BoKnows81 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2026 4:30 pm Why was it a big gamble? He's approaching 30 and this is a rebuilding team. It was a smart decision to trade him and it still is. You are 100% wrong that this FO "breathed a huge sigh of relief" once the Ravens backed out. They knew trading him was the right call and whoever thinks otherwise obviously doubts this FO.
The reason I say that - one of the firsts was truly present value. No question about where in the 1st and no period of games between the trade and the draft where you’re just objectively worse if he’s traded mid season.
Honestly though I think we stuck the landing. The concern would be that Maxx staying becomes untenable and than the sharks circle to get him for cents on the dollar. The fact that we were able to mend fences (or convince teams we have) more or less allows us to reset.
And with a guy if his caliber - the worst way to play it is “just get what we can”. At some point if you’re trading him early you need a reasonable path to another potential franchise player. Giving up 2-3 years of elite Maxx for a 2nd round pick that honestly may have a shorter tenure here than Maxx would have with his new team… not great long term planning and abhorrent short term planning.
Short of that, keep him. You’re a better team with him by a mile.
- These users gave a High Five to the author raiders93 for the post (total 4):
- Vercingetorix, chucker, dred, Jeevo
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1237 times
- Received High Fives: 2965 times
The argument to keep Maxx has always been on par with keeping Brown or Long. Even as both those guys approached their early thirties, the team around them was mediocre. Could we have traded them? Absolutely, they had value on the market on par with Maxx. But turning around a team does not mean years upon years. We could very well be a playoff team in 2027 and then Maxx's value is on the field, not on the market. I was not opposed to the Baltimore trade because the value was there. But we do not trade Maxx just to trade him. We only do so if the value is there. If it is not, the value move is to quickly rebuild the team so we do not waste that value.
- Viper
- Posts: 1,804
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:39 pm
- Has given High Fives: 811 times
- Received High Fives: 945 times
Nicely stated. There is not a dire situation on hand with Maxx, nor is there panic. A good front office understands his value. I also was not opposed to the Ravens trade as it had the potential to make the team immediately improved for the future.Attyla wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 4:52 am The argument to keep Maxx has always been on par with keeping Brown or Long. Even as both those guys approached their early thirties, the team around them was mediocre. Could we have traded them? Absolutely, they had value on the market on par with Maxx. But turning around a team does not mean years upon years. We could very well be a playoff team in 2027 and then Maxx's value is on the field, not on the market. I was not opposed to the Baltimore trade because the value was there. But we do not trade Maxx just to trade him. We only do so if the value is there. If it is not, the value move is to quickly rebuild the team so we do not waste that value.
Fans typically don’t have the foresight for a rebuild, understandable yet unfortunate. Smart decisions focused on the future along with patience is the key.
- raiders93
- Posts: 5,060
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:34 pm
- Has given High Fives: 8 times
- Received High Fives: 256 times
This and as much as I love to mock this organization’s stupidity… they did a great job managing the Maxx situation. It’s easy to forget how on brand it would’ve been for us to watch a great deal from the Ravens implode… and then trade him for a 2nd and 4th the next day. If there’s a team in the NFL that would do that… it would be us.Attyla wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 4:52 am The argument to keep Maxx has always been on par with keeping Brown or Long. Even as both those guys approached their early thirties, the team around them was mediocre. Could we have traded them? Absolutely, they had value on the market on par with Maxx. But turning around a team does not mean years upon years. We could very well be a playoff team in 2027 and then Maxx's value is on the field, not on the market. I was not opposed to the Baltimore trade because the value was there. But we do not trade Maxx just to trade him. We only do so if the value is there. If it is not, the value move is to quickly rebuild the team so we do not waste that value.
The fact that we (and Maxx) were able to effectively shrug this off and reset our position on a Maxx trade is unusually competent for us. And the best thing we can do at this point is hold the line - Maxx costs a pair of 1sts + otherwise we’re perfectly happy to keep him.
- Atlasffa
- Posts: 13,146
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 7:41 am
- Location: Just Win Baby!
- Has given High Fives: 184 times
- Received High Fives: 750 times
Dropping this here to help you think about what could be realistic expectations. This was recorded in February and at the end Jesse adds some comments regarding how players who were added afterward might fit in. Gives good insight into the Kubiak offense.
-
BoKnows81
- Posts: 7,324
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:36 am
- Has given High Fives: 927 times
- Received High Fives: 2163 times
As long as Mendoza starts sooner than later, I'm still sticking with my early prediction of 8-9 for this team. In which I'd be very happy with.
- rich72
- Posts: 8,648
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:34 pm
- Has given High Fives: 669 times
- Received High Fives: 362 times
If we didnt have such a brutal schedule this season I think we could win at least half our games. It will be interesting to see how everything shakes out, a few key injuries on the teams we play against could change up everything for us. We played awful last season, the coaching was horrific, and we were riddled with injuries especially to our o-line. We really dont even know what we have this season because last season needs to be erased from our players memories.
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1237 times
- Received High Fives: 2965 times
We have a middle of the road schedule. Basing how hard a schedule is based on previous win totals is one of the worst ways of ranking a schedule. Using the Sharp Football Analysis is one very good tool to determine how hard a schedule is. And based on that tool, ours is around 19th in ranking.rich72 wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 12:37 pm If we didnt have such a brutal schedule this season I think we could win at least half our games. It will be interesting to see how everything shakes out, a few key injuries on the teams we play against could change up everything for us. We played awful last season, the coaching was horrific, and we were riddled with injuries especially to our o-line. We really dont even know what we have this season because last season needs to be erased from our players memories.
https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/a ... -schedule/
Is the tool accurate? Short answer is yes. The tool uses a lot of metrics to get to the truth. Vegas predictions are included. We likely win near or so to the Vegas number of 5.5 wins, but not because we have a "brutal" schedule and more than likely simply because of talent, new coaching and our division games. But the division games are the same every year, it is just when those games are played. And we usually end up with either a game at Denver or at KC late in the year when weather might be a factor. This year, we have a late November game at Denver, but the chance of snow is around 4% at that time of year. We finish the season with the KC game being the only one where there is a higher chance of weather being a factor. We actually probably have a worse weather game when we play in Miami to start the year due to the extreme heat likely to be found. After that, weather is far less of a factor. Yes, we have the NFC West to contend with and we get the AFC East, but all three AFC groupings are good and the NFC are also tough across the board. But we also get eleven games in domes where we do not even have to worry about weather at all. We also play six teams with serious questions at QB, and yes I include New Orleans on the list. I almost took Cleveland off the list but they had theirs go to the Pro Bowl, but ultimately I included them because he might be a one hit wonder and he will not be wearing flags on his hips.
- FLORIDARAYDAH
- Posts: 8,142
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:38 pm
- Has given High Fives: 986 times
- Received High Fives: 601 times
If the weather affects the team in the opener it's gonna be a long seasonAttyla wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:05 pm We have a middle of the road schedule. Basing how hard a schedule is based on previous win totals is one of the worst ways of ranking a schedule. Using the Sharp Football Analysis is one very good tool to determine how hard a schedule is. And based on that tool, ours is around 19th in ranking.
https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/a ... -schedule/
Is the tool accurate? Short answer is yes. The tool uses a lot of metrics to get to the truth. Vegas predictions are included. We likely win near or so to the Vegas number of 5.5 wins, but not because we have a "brutal" schedule and more than likely simply because of talent, new coaching and our division games. But the division games are the same every year, it is just when those games are played. And we usually end up with either a game at Denver or at KC late in the year when weather might be a factor. This year, we have a late November game at Denver, but the chance of snow is around 4% at that time of year. We finish the season with the KC game being the only one where there is a higher chance of weather being a factor. We actually probably have a worse weather game when we play in Miami to start the year due to the extreme heat likely to be found. After that, weather is far less of a factor. Yes, we have the NFC West to contend with and we get the AFC East, but all three AFC groupings are good and the NFC are also tough across the board. But we also get eleven games in domes where we do not even have to worry about weather at all. We also play six teams with serious questions at QB, and yes I include New Orleans on the list. I almost took Cleveland off the list but they had theirs go to the Pro Bowl, but ultimately I included them because he might be a one hit wonder and he will not be wearing flags on his hips.
- These users gave a High Five to the author FLORIDARAYDAH for the post:
- Raider Nation
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1237 times
- Received High Fives: 2965 times
Well, we all know that the stadium is set up so the visiting team gets the brunt of the sun and on field conditions in Miami can make it feel like it is 110 degrees or more. I doubt you have to worry about rain in early September there but hot? Humid? That can take it out of a team and Miami has been known to wear their away jersey's early in the season. Gaming the other team is a thing.FLORIDARAYDAH wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:30 pm If the weather affects the team in the opener it's gonna be a long season
I think that is a very winnable game but I also think other than possibly the KC game it is the only game on the schedule where the weather could be a factor.
- FLORIDARAYDAH
- Posts: 8,142
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:38 pm
- Has given High Fives: 986 times
- Received High Fives: 601 times
I agree with all you said plus it's hurricane season. But the game is in VegasAttyla wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:42 pm Well, we all know that the stadium is set up so the visiting team gets the brunt of the sun and on field conditions in Miami can make it feel like it is 110 degrees or more. I doubt you have to worry about rain in early September there but hot? Humid? That can take it out of a team and Miami has been known to wear their away jersey's early in the season. Gaming the other team is a thing.
I think that is a very winnable game but I also think other than possibly the KC game it is the only game on the schedule where the weather could be a factor.
- These users gave a High Five to the author FLORIDARAYDAH for the post:
- Raider Nation
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1237 times
- Received High Fives: 2965 times
oh dammit, I was just cruising and thought I was being profound. haha, I may be a bit hungover still lolFLORIDARAYDAH wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:47 pm I agree with all you said plus it's hurricane season. But the game is in Vegas![]()
- These users gave a High Five to the author Attyla for the post:
- FLORIDARAYDAH
-
Dr Death
- Posts: 4,277
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:51 am
- Has given High Fives: 4284 times
- Received High Fives: 1118 times
Without knowing how much the team will improve... and I 100% think it will, I'm going with 6 - 7 wins. I hope things will have improved enough to get 8 - 9 wins. Time will tell. 
- FLORIDARAYDAH
- Posts: 8,142
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:38 pm
- Has given High Fives: 986 times
- Received High Fives: 601 times
If it was in Miami that would be brutal. Im from there and can't even sit in the stands early in the season. I cant imagine playing a game there. And yes Miami always chooses to wear white when it's hotAttyla wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:58 pm oh dammit, I was just cruising and thought I was being profound. haha, I may be a bit hungover still lol