PDA

View Full Version : Peter King first power rankings are out.


eacantdraft
07-17-2007, 10:39 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/16/mmqb/index.html

I agree with most of his picks. Detroit is too high, Arizona and Cleveland is too low.

Beans
07-17-2007, 10:42 AM
Minnesota and Cleveland at the bottom? Eh.

Ravens1991
07-17-2007, 10:43 AM
Some Kelly Gregg love, that is good.

LionSmack
07-17-2007, 10:47 AM
King has overrated the Lions almost every year lately. I think at this point he's kind of throwing good money after bad, and figuring one of these years he'll be right and look really good. After all, the NFL is all about total surprises, and if you're looking for a dark horse team to back, they don't get darker than the Lions.

PoopSandwich
07-17-2007, 10:50 AM
Browns get Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, an upgrade at RB (a huge question mark though.) a year under the belts of Winslow/Edwards, a corner to start opposite of Bodden, upgrades on the d-line, and possibly the return of LeCharles, not to mention the addition of Quinn who should play some time during the season, and we go down to 32nd... I don't get it!

Hines
07-17-2007, 10:52 AM
eh its alright....i believe the steelers should be top 10 but i guess 12 is good...i believe the steelers are way better then the jets and the rams are a so so..seattle they can be better then along with philly..but thats imo

SuperMcGee
07-17-2007, 11:04 AM
I'll agree with Seattle and St. Louis staying on top of the NFC West. Don't like the Lions or Titans being in the top half of the league, and I'm thinking Cincy should be higher

PalmerToCJ
07-17-2007, 11:09 AM
LOL at the Bengals being that low. The only NFC teams we should be behind are the Bears and maybe Saints, although in a head to head I think we at the worst split with them. I think we'll have a better year than the Ravens, via schedule and just banking on things that went wrong for us last year going right and things that went right for them last year not going so well. With that said I still think they should be ahead of us in initial power rankings because they're the defending champs.

BuckNaked
07-17-2007, 11:13 AM
He has us at 31? Peter King blows.

PalmerToCJ
07-17-2007, 11:19 AM
King neglects to mention that we went 14 games without our all-pro LT, a bulk of our season was spent with basically rookies on the OL. Those rookies progressed very well and were solid at the end of the year, not the beginning though. We have Carson on two good legs, finally a backup for Rudi, Ahmad Brooks > anyone we had at MLB last year, Rashad Jeanty has one more year under his belt. Tory James is thankfully gone, arguably the worst starting CB last year (sorry Saints fans lol).

Plus we had just about everything that could go wrong go wrong last year. Lost one game via phantom roughing the passer, one missed pass interference with under 2 minutes, the Denver game was full of oddities, missed FG vs. Pitt that would've still put us in the playoffs. It's pretty bad the amount/quality of teams he has us behind.

TheMadLionsFan
07-17-2007, 11:26 AM
It is a sad world we live in when the Lions are overrated,,,,

cardsalltheway
07-17-2007, 11:58 AM
The Colts at #1? That's quite a surprise

Shiver
07-17-2007, 11:59 AM
The Titans are about 15 spots too high.

eacantdraft
07-17-2007, 12:10 PM
Minnesota and Cleveland at the bottom? Eh.

Minnesota is right where they should be. Them and Oakland will vie for the 1st pick in next year's NFL draft.

Geo
07-17-2007, 12:18 PM
Talk of the Houston Texans and the Tennessee Titans as potential playoff teams amuses me: they are going to be picking in the Top 5 for yet another year in the Draft imo. Much as I'd love to see the AFC South be a strong conference from top to bottom, to better prepare the Colts for the playoffs, I know firsthand the schedule that the teams in the conference have to play and both the Titans and the Texans are going to struggle to get victories.

Houston Texans
Sep 9 Kansas City
Sep 16 @Carolina
Sep 23 Indianapolis
Sep 30 @Atlanta
Oct 7 Miami
Oct 14 @Jacksonville
Oct 21 Tennessee
Oct 28 @San Diego
Nov 4 @Oakland
Week 10 BYE
Nov 18 New Orleans
Nov 25 @Cleveland
Dec 2 @Tennessee
Dec 9 Tampa Bay
Dec 13 Denver
Dec 23 @Indianapolis
Dec 30 Jacksonville

Tennessee Titans
Sep 9 @Jacksonville
Sep 16 Indianapolis
Sep 24 @New Orleans
Week 4 BYE
Oct 7 Atlanta
Oct 14 @Tampa Bay
Oct 21 @Houston
Oct 28 Oakland
Nov 4 Carolina
Nov 11 Jacksonville
Nov 19 @Denver
Nov 25 @Cincinnati
Dec 2 Houston
Dec 9 San Diego
Dec 16 @Kansas City
Dec 23 N.Y. Jets
Dec 30 @Indianapolis

BuckNaked
07-17-2007, 12:20 PM
Minnesota is right where they should be. Them and Oakland will vie for the 1st pick in next year's NFL draft.

Why? Tell me why this will happen. You seem to think you know everything you're talking about, which you never do. Explain to me how we've gotten so much worse from last year.

neko4
07-17-2007, 12:20 PM
I really think Detroit is gonna improve but teams dont go from 2-14 to 7-9 or 8-8 in a year

neko4
07-17-2007, 12:21 PM
Why? Tell me why this will happen. You seem to think you know everything you're talking about, which you never do. Explain to me how we've gotten so much worse from last year.

Because they have a bad QB, bad WR's, a decent O-Line, and a decent defense. The only special thing in Minny is the RB's

PalmerToCJ
07-17-2007, 12:22 PM
I really think Detroit is gonna improve but teams dont go from 2-14 to 7-9 or 8-8 in a year

Well, Kitna did it himself at Cincinnati, I could see it potentially happening that they got 8-8 but he still has them too high.

cardsalltheway
07-17-2007, 12:24 PM
I really think Detroit is gonna improve but teams dont go from 2-14 to 7-9 or 8-8 in a year

They do all the time. 12 teams have made at least that big of a jump in the last 8 years alone.

BuckNaked
07-17-2007, 12:29 PM
Because they have a bad QB, bad WR's, a decent O-Line, and a decent defense. The only special thing in Minny is the RB's

First of all, the reason we took out Brad Johnson was because it was near impossible to do worse than him. You can't say we haven't improved our WR corps from last year. I think Williamson will perform better this season, Bobby Wade can play well out of the slot and I expect Sidney Rice and Aundrae Allison to have an impact. The young guys on our offensive line will have another year of experience under their belts, and will do a better job. What are you talking about, a decent defense? We had an amazing run defense. This year we will also have Cedric Griffin starting the entire year, instead of Fred Smoot who was horrible. Not to mention we brought in Mike Doss, who is familiar with the Tampa-2 defense.

Vikes99ej
07-17-2007, 12:36 PM
First of all, the reason we took out Brad Johnson was because it was near impossible to do worse than him. You can't say we haven't improved our WR corps from last year. I think Williamson will perform better this season, Bobby Wade can play well out of the slot and I expect Sidney Rice and Aundrae Allison to have an impact. The young guys on our offensive line will have another year of experience under their belts, and will do a better job. What are you talking about, a decent defense? We had an amazing run defense. This year we will also have Cedric Griffin starting the entire year, instead of Fred Smoot who was horrible. Not to mention we brought in Mike Doss, who is familiar with the Tampa-2 defense.

Don't listen to him, Buck. You should have seen right away that he is a Packers' fan.

Geo
07-17-2007, 12:38 PM
The 2006 Minnesota Vikings' run defense is one of the best in NFL history.

Also, a healthy Chad Greenway more than makes up for the loss of Napolean Harris.

I'm still wary about the Vikings' pass rush though, the team is counting on Ray Edwards to come through way too much for my liking. Maybe Erasmus James will have recovered fully in time for the season, given how modern medicine has advanced with torn knee ligaments, but I'll have to see it before believing it. And if the team should blitz more to help out the pass rush, that leaves their coverage even more exposed.

eacantdraft
07-17-2007, 12:42 PM
Why? Tell me why this will happen. You seem to think you know everything you're talking about, which you never do. Explain to me how we've gotten so much worse from last year.

You were 6-10 last year. You can get worse than that.

You have a green QB, bad WR's, an injury prone RB, a tougher schedule (playing AFC west teams).

Time to take off the homer glasses.

Vikes99ej
07-17-2007, 12:45 PM
The 2006 Minnesota Vikings' run defense is one of the best in NFL history.

Also, a healthy Chad Greenway more than makes up for the loss of Napolean Harris.

I'm still wary about the Vikings' pass rush though, the team is counting on Ray Edwards to come through way too much for my liking. Maybe Erasmus James will have recovered fully in time for the season, given how modern medicine has advanced with torn knee ligaments, but I'll have to see it before believing it. And if the team should blitz more to help out the pass rush, that leaves their coverage even more exposed.

That's what I'm saying. If we can get an above-average pass-rush out of James and Edwards, I think our defense could be in the upper-echelon of the NFC and maybe NFL. That is all our defense is missing right now.

BuckNaked
07-17-2007, 12:46 PM
That's what I'm saying. If we can get an above-average pass-rush out of James and Edwards, I think our defense could be in the upper-echelon of the NFC and maybe NFL. That is all our defense is missing right now.

Our defense being called mediocre by a Packers fan, pfft.

Jughead10
07-17-2007, 12:48 PM
How does a healthy Chad Greenway make up for anything. He is still an unknown in this league. I never thought he could be a legit LB in this league last year and was so glad when the Vikes took him just because then the Giants couldn't. He is soft.

Moses
07-17-2007, 12:51 PM
Texans are the worst team on paper in my viewpoint. They're my selection for 1st overall pick next year. The Vikings at least have a defence.

TheChampIsHere
07-17-2007, 12:51 PM
Bengals at 17? His reason, they were middle of the pack last year in terms of record. Did he even watch any games? Did he see how they lost? Carson Palmer was coming off a major injury....The Bengals are the team no one wants to play, because they know just how potent that offense is. Make no mistake, it is the league's most high-powered. The D is coming around, they have a lot less players in trouble this year, which became a serious distraction. The Bengals are a legitimate superbowl contender this year if you ask me and for him to put the likes of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Seattle, STL, NYJ, Dallas and Tennessee over them is just silly.

Jughead10
07-17-2007, 12:52 PM
Texans are the worst team on paper in my viewpoint. They're my selection for 1st overall pick next year. The Vikings at least have a defence.

Do you expect them to be as dominant in stopping the run as they were last year?

Moses
07-17-2007, 12:54 PM
Do you expect them to be as dominant in stopping the run as they were last year?

Was this sarcrastic? They were in the bottom half of the league in rush defence...

BrownsTown
07-17-2007, 12:55 PM
How does a healthy Chad Greenway make up for anything. He is still an unknown in this league. I never thought he could be a legit LB in this league last year and was so glad when the Vikes took him just because then the Giants couldn't. He is soft.

He can cover, he can tackle, and he's a hard worker. Sure he doesn't have these incredible physical tools, but he's consistent and just a good, fundamentaly sound, smart LB. You're writing him off after 1 season which he didn't even play in? Wow.

Jughead10
07-17-2007, 01:00 PM
Was this sarcrastic? They were in the bottom half of the league in rush defence...

I'm talking about the Vikings.

Jughead10
07-17-2007, 01:02 PM
He can cover, he can tackle, and he's a hard worker. Sure he doesn't have these incredible physical tools, but he's consistent and just a good, fundamentaly sound, smart LB. You're writing him off after 1 season which he didn't even play in? Wow.

Actually for the record, I was writing him off before he got drafted. Regardless he has no experience playing on Sundays yet. Not neccesarily an upgrade. He has just as many question marks as he does answers.

PalmerToCJ
07-17-2007, 01:05 PM
Bengals at 17? His reason, they were middle of the pack last year in terms of record. Did he even watch any games? Did he see how they lost? Carson Palmer was coming off a major injury....The Bengals are the team no one wants to play, because they know just how potent that offense is. Make no mistake, it is the league's most high-powered. The D is coming around, they have a lot less players in trouble this year, which became a serious distraction. The Bengals are a legitimate superbowl contender this year if you ask me and for him to put the likes of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Seattle, STL, NYJ, Dallas and Tennessee over them is just silly.

Thank you, nice to see someone else realizes how horrible that is. To be honest I don't think we're a heavy SB contender but we'll make the playoffs, maybe go a round but nothing more. It annoys me that he assumes other teams players will improve while ours won't, we're a young team... Especially on defense and have a much easier schedule this year.

Moses
07-17-2007, 01:10 PM
I'm talking about the Vikings.

Ohhh...

Will they be AS good? Maybe not. Will they be good? I would expect so.

Jughead10
07-17-2007, 01:12 PM
Ohhh...

Will they be AS good? Maybe not. Will they be good? I would expect so.

I guess thats where I disagree. Last year they were so much better than any other team in run defense. I think it was a fluke. They just don't have the personnel to be truly that good of a run defense.

doingthisinsteadofwork
07-17-2007, 01:15 PM
Texans are the worst team on paper in my viewpoint. They're my selection for 1st overall pick next year. The Vikings at least have a defence.well at least they'll be able to take McFadden unless they screw up again and take Calais.

Geo
07-17-2007, 01:18 PM
I question how much of Greenway you've seen to call him soft, Jughead. In fact, I'm inclined to believe you're basing your opinion on Greenway's lackluster bench reps in the pre-Draft process, more than anything.

As for the Bengals offense, it's easy to call them high-powered because they are so inconsistent. They love the deep ball way too much, and it costs them. When they can get over their damn highlight reels and press clippings and become a methodical, consistent machine on offense, maybe then they can actually win the games that count. They might advance past the wild card round in the playoffs, if they can draw a dud like the 06 Jets who don't belong there in the first place, but that's assuming the Bengals actually qualify for the tournament.

Brent
07-17-2007, 01:20 PM
King has overrated the Lions almost every year lately. I think at this point he's kind of throwing good money after bad, and figuring one of these years he'll be right and look really good. After all, the NFL is all about total surprises, and if you're looking for a dark horse team to back, they don't get darker than the Lions.
I think he even mentioned that he is putting them that high in hopes they do well. I am sure if the Lions somehow end up doing well, he will boast about calling it all season.

Michigan
07-17-2007, 01:22 PM
Saints at 4? Anyone else think thats way too high?

Moses
07-17-2007, 01:25 PM
I guess thats where I disagree. Last year they were so much better than any other team in run defense. I think it was a fluke. They just don't have the personnel to be truly that good of a run defense.

Pat Williams and Kevin Williams could be the dest DT duo in the league. That interior was amazing. The DEs were pretty terrible overall but they were much better against the run than versus the pass. The linebackers are an OK unit but they are really tailored to play against the run. The secondary is pretty good at stopping the run too, especially with guys like Winfield back there.

Overall, I think they definitely have a talented run defence. It all starts up front and the Williams Bros. make it impossible to run it up the gut.

Geo
07-17-2007, 01:26 PM
That's not surprising for King, he gets on his knees and puckers his lips for the Saints - and Drew Brees especially - like no other.

Jughead10
07-17-2007, 01:26 PM
I question how much of Greenway you've seen to call him soft, Jughead. In fact, I'm inclined to believe you're basing your opinion on Greenway's lackluster bench reps in the pre-Draft process, more than anything.

As for the Bengals offense, it's easy to call them high-powered because they are so inconsistent. They love the deep ball way too much, and it costs them. When they can get over their damn highlight reels and press clippings and become a methodical, consistent machine on offense, maybe then they can actually win the games that count. They might advance past the wild card round in the playoffs, if they can draw a dud like the 06 Jets who don't belong there in the first place, but that's assuming the Bengals actually qualify for the tournament.

Or the fact that he ran around blocks his entire career at Iowa and was frequently outshined by Abdul Hodge who was subsequently picked after him.

PalmerToCJ
07-17-2007, 01:29 PM
I'm fairly certain the Bengals will make the playoffs, easy schedule and I can't help but expect better luck than last year. I'm pleased with the team but until they prove they can beat Indy or New England I refuse to consider us a SB contender. We've got New England week 4 but I'm already considering that a L. The only two teams that really concern me are the Colts/Pats, the rest I think we can beat.

I think our reliance on the long ball last year was a combo of problems. The injured Oline and injury to Chris Perry hurt our offense as a unit and they felt they had to rely more on the long ball. While going deep is a strength of our offense you're right the reliance on it needs to steady. It seems like all that Chad did last year was go deep or run curls to the sideline. Tab Perry was also hurt and he combines with TJ to be our more midrange WR's while Chad/Henry go deep. It'll help the offense having Tab back.

Brent
07-17-2007, 01:32 PM
That's not surprising for King, he gets on his knees and puckers his lips for the Saints - and Drew Brees especially - like no other.
King is kind of a tool to begin with, in my opinion.

HoopsDemon12
07-17-2007, 01:33 PM
Browns get Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, an upgrade at RB (a huge question mark though.) a year under the belts of Winslow/Edwards, a corner to start opposite of Bodden, upgrades on the d-line, and possibly the return of LeCharles, not to mention the addition of Quinn who should play some time during the season, and we go down to 32nd... I don't get it!

i think its just based on the fact before that kamerion wimbley draft... those other drafts were prttty terrible... maybe he just thinks they need a couple more young talented players and then have your first day picks perform before he ranks you higher... sucks you dont have your first rounder next year though... but i like quinn over both of the other QB's personally... but to be fair i havnt liked many qb's in the past draft or this one...

Geo
07-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Greenway outshined by Hodge? Did you watch anything more than the last bowl game they played in? GTFO.

Greenway's job wasn't to block, it was to tackle and cover. And he did it better than anyone else on his last two Iowa teams, including Abdul Hodge who is ridiculously one-dimensional and will be lucky to see much action in the pros past special teams because of it.

I still get a laugh at the idiots at Colts.com who wanted Hodge so desperately, incidentally. He's not even an upgrade on Rob Morris.

keylime_5
07-17-2007, 01:46 PM
I really think Detroit is gonna improve but teams dont go from 2-14 to 7-9 or 8-8 in a year

2005 New Orleans Saints: #2 Pick in the Draft
2006 New Orleans Saints: NFC Runners Up.

Moses
07-17-2007, 01:46 PM
Greenway outshined by Hodge? Did you watch anything more than the last bowl game they played in? GTFO.

Greenway's job wasn't to block, it was to tackle and cover. And he did it better than anyone else on his last two Iowa teams, including Abdul Hodge who is ridiculously one-dimensional and will be lucky to see much action in the pros past special teams because of it.

I still get a laugh at the idiots at Colts.com who wanted Hodge so desperately, incidentally. He's not even an upgrade on Rob Morris.

Who said anything about Greenway blocking? They were talking about Greenway running around blocks because he couldn't take them on. That's not something that can be done at the pro level.

Greenway is unproven and thinking he's going to be a big upgrade over what the Vikings already have is likely wishful thinking.

Vikes99ej
07-17-2007, 01:47 PM
The success of our defense is irrelevant if our offense produces how it did last year.

Geo
07-17-2007, 01:50 PM
He's replacing Napolean Harris, for crying out loud.

Although, EJ Henderson is moving to MIKE and Greenway will be playing WILL. zomg, think of the blocks he'll have to get through as the WLB!!11!1ones!!

:rolleyes:

keylime_5
07-17-2007, 01:50 PM
No team with an O-Line as deep and talented as Cleveland's is gonna finish last place. Heck, they won 4 games last year with a pathetic O-LIne, no RB, no CBs, and a really sorry OC. Not to mention KW2 was playing on 1 knee and Edwards was just returning from a torn ACL. If anything the fact that Anderson and Frye are a year more experienced with a much better run game behind them will give the Browns 6 to 8 wins probably.

As for Minnesota and Tennessee, I could see either of those teams just as easily making the playoffs as finishing with a top 5 pick. That's life in the NFL though.

keylime_5
07-17-2007, 01:52 PM
You don't have to be that great at taking on blocks if you play OLB in a cover 2. Greenway will do just fine in Minnesota. He will be a major upgrade over Napoleon Harris, at least in that system anyways. Minnesota's success depends on T.Jackson and that lousy WR unit he has to work with. Hopefully AD and C.Taylor can be as successful as Jones-Drew and Taylor were in Jacksonville's offense with 8 guys in the box all the time.

Moses
07-17-2007, 01:53 PM
He's replacing Napolean Harris, for crying out loud.

Although, EJ Henderson is moving to MIKE and Greenway will be playing WILL. zomg, think of the blocks he'll have to get through as the WLB!!11!1ones!!

:rolleyes:

Your sarcasm is making you look like an idiot if you think that any linebacker won't take on blocks nearly every play. If you don't block the front seven, you don't gain yards. Simple as that.

Also, if you think a rookie who hasn't played a snap in the NFL is going to be a significant upgrade over a seasoned NFL veteran in his first season you are likely mistaken.

Geo
07-17-2007, 02:00 PM
I'm interested to see how the AFC North pans out.

Cleveland should be better, but we'll see by how much - starting anyone but Frye is a definite improvement, regardless. The Ravens defense could repeat as division champs, despite being saddled with an offense that puts the ball in the hands of either "Dead Air" McNair or Willis "Playbooks, Shmaybooks" McGahee on every play. Bengals and Steelers could bounce back, of course.

Vikes99ej
07-17-2007, 02:10 PM
I was pretty disappointed to Harris leave. I thought he had a good year, when he played.

Smooth Criminal
07-17-2007, 03:11 PM
Browns get Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, an upgrade at RB (a huge question mark though.) a year under the belts of Winslow/Edwards, a corner to start opposite of Bodden, upgrades on the d-line, and possibly the return of LeCharles, not to mention the addition of Quinn who should play some time during the season, and we go down to 32nd... I don't get it!

Just tells you how bad they were before all that.

bearsfan_51
07-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Why? Tell me why this will happen. You seem to think you know everything you're talking about, which you never do. Explain to me how we've gotten so much worse from last year.
Well, to be fair, the Vikings were 2-8 over their last 10 games. So they could actually improve and still only win 4-5 games.

rchrd
07-17-2007, 04:22 PM
All this Viking talk makes me uncomfortable. Last year early doors it was 'they can run and stop the run, they're looking good to make the playoffs'. We all know how that ended...

The thing about having a bunch of unknowns is that it's fairly irresponsible to use that as a benchmark for how they will actually produce (ie. they're unknown so you're not allowed to predict improvement, you can only use them as an argument for weakness, an argument used a few times already in this thread).

Saying that, I liked Tomlin a lot and think that loss will show. With a weaker schedule i'd say the WR and QB situation isnt as bad as at first glance (run, run, run, run and run again), but the schedule has the potential of being brutal we could very well end up with a high pick. This team is geared towards future production not instant impact. Sprinkled in with a few pieces to avoid complete collapse also with the potential to surprise.

For those reasons I have no problem with low expectations, I just dont think it's overly insightful to say we'll be bad because of unknowns. Then again that's hardly unique to the Vikings so no need to get defensive.

Geo
07-17-2007, 04:53 PM
I'd rather have Leslie Frazier coaching my secondary than Mike Tomlin, Frazier being the new defensive coordinator of the Minnesota Vikings.

Shiver
07-17-2007, 05:26 PM
Texans are the worst team on paper in my viewpoint. They're my selection for 1st overall pick next year. The Vikings at least have a defence.

You must be looking at a different paper then I am. I'll stick with BBD on the 'Houston Texans as a surprise team' bandwagon, thank you very much.

Geo
07-17-2007, 05:34 PM
Talk of the Houston Texans and the Tennessee Titans as potential playoff teams amuses me: they are going to be picking in the Top 5 for yet another year in the Draft imo. Much as I'd love to see the AFC South be a strong conference from top to bottom, to better prepare the Colts for the playoffs, I know firsthand the schedule that the teams in the conference have to play and both the Titans and the Texans are going to struggle to get victories.

Houston Texans
Sep 9 Kansas City
Sep 16 @Carolina
Sep 23 Indianapolis
Sep 30 @Atlanta
Oct 7 Miami
Oct 14 @Jacksonville
Oct 21 Tennessee
Oct 28 @San Diego
Nov 4 @Oakland
Week 10 BYE
Nov 18 New Orleans
Nov 25 @Cleveland
Dec 2 @Tennessee
Dec 9 Tampa Bay
Dec 13 Denver
Dec 23 @Indianapolis
Dec 30 Jacksonville
How many wins do you see from this schedule, Shiver? I'm just wondering.

Shiver
07-17-2007, 05:37 PM
Pre-season S.O.S is inherently flawed. I put next to zero stock into it. At this time last year facing the Saints would have been a cupcake game and facing Miami would have been a challenge.

If I were to guess I see 6-7 wins in there, but I personally see them getting around .500, but that's just me. I'm on the bandwagon, and I take it upon myself to go down with the sinking ship if necessary.

Dam8610
07-17-2007, 05:59 PM
Your sarcasm is making you look like an idiot if you think that any linebacker won't take on blocks nearly every play. If you don't block the front seven, you don't gain yards. Simple as that.

Also, if you think a rookie who hasn't played a snap in the NFL is going to be a significant upgrade over a seasoned NFL veteran in his first season you are likely mistaken.

You don't know much about the Tampa 2 scheme, do you? Also, Greenway isn't a rookie. He hasn't really been on even the practice field much yet, but he's been there more than a rookie, and he's had a year to study the scheme he'll be playing in as well as his position.

neko4
07-17-2007, 06:18 PM
Was this sarcrastic? They were in the bottom half of the league in rush defence...

I really think the Texan defense will be much better, its their offense we should be worried about, theyre questionable at QB, RB, and OL

Dam8610
07-17-2007, 06:19 PM
Pre-season S.O.S is inherently flawed.

Exactly. S.O.S. is basically a complete unknown until season's end.

Geo
07-17-2007, 06:43 PM
I really think the Texan defense will be much better, its their offense we should be worried about, theyre questionable at QB, RB, and OL
The Texans are okay at RB, granted there isn't anyone close to a home-run threat of any type with Green/Dayne/Lundy, but that's solid if unspectacular depth to carry the ball. I'd be surprised if Kubiak doesn't tweak his offense to give Green, who catches the ball well, a high number of receptions as available receiving options down the field could be slim and the offense line can hold on for only so long. But Kubiak has made screwing up an art form thus far in his tenure, so who knows.

The secondary however is still be suspect, I think. Dunta Robinson, like Andre Johnson on the other side of the ball, is an excellent player who deserves more pub, but one man does not a successful secondary make. And we saw that last year, even with an improved front seven. Speaking of, the Amobi Okoye pick was a great one by the Texans, but I think Okoye in his transition to the pros will experience growing pains as a rookie and then make his mark afterwards.

neko4
07-17-2007, 06:50 PM
The Texans are okay at RB, granted there isn't anyone close to a home-run threat of any type with Green/Dayne/Lundy, but that's solid if unspectacular depth to carry the ball. I'd be surprised if Kubiak doesn't tweak his offense to give Green, who catches the ball well, a high number of receptions as available receiving options down the field could be slim and the offense line can hold on for only so long. But Kubiak has made screwing up an art form thus far in his tenure, so who knows.

The secondary however is still be suspect, I think. Dunta Robinson, like Andre Johnson on the other side of the ball, is an excellent player who deserves more pub, but one man does not a successful secondary make. And we saw that last year, even with an improved front seven. Speaking of, the Amobi Okoye pick was a great one by the Texans, but I think Okoye in his transition to the pros will experience growing pains as a rookie and then make his mark afterwards.

Is Mathis healthy? If he is he's an instant boost to the special teams, and yes I know Green is a good reciever out of the backfield.

Shiver
07-17-2007, 07:25 PM
The Texans are okay at RB, granted there isn't anyone close to a home-run threat of any type with Green/Dayne/Lundy, but that's solid if unspectacular depth to carry the ball. I'd be surprised if Kubiak doesn't tweak his offense to give Green, who catches the ball well, a high number of receptions as available receiving options down the field could be slim and the offense line can hold on for only so long. But Kubiak has made screwing up an art form thus far in his tenure, so who knows.


How so? It isn't his fault that he inherited a lousy team from Charlie Casserly, or that Dan Reeves told the owner that David Carr could still be a franchise QB. Please don't tell me that you are referring to the Reggie Bush thing. As if he would have done anything for them last year.

artisfeces
07-17-2007, 07:30 PM
chicago will not win NFC homefield advantage. They will make the playoffs but be significantly worse than last year.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
07-17-2007, 07:48 PM
JCisAGod

6th is prettty nice.

OzTitan
07-18-2007, 06:40 AM
Talk of the Houston Texans and the Tennessee Titans as potential playoff teams amuses me: they are going to be picking in the Top 5 for yet another year in the Draft imo. Much as I'd love to see the AFC South be a strong conference from top to bottom, to better prepare the Colts for the playoffs, I know firsthand the schedule that the teams in the conference have to play and both the Titans and the Texans are going to struggle to get victories.


Yet another year? The Titans have only picked in the top 5 once in recent years. In fact before VY, the last time was when they picked McNair.

And they also had one of the league's toughest schedules last season, and picked 19th.

ncstateviking
07-18-2007, 10:38 AM
people saying the begals and steelers belong above the jets make me laugh. last year you werent better than the jets when they were in a defensive transition year, had no RB, and had their Qb coming into his first season after 2 shoulder surgeries. with a healthy chad pennington, the second year in the 34, 2 huge defensive additions, and thomas jones at RB you really think you deserve to move past a team that was better than you in the first place?

PalmerToCJ
07-18-2007, 10:53 AM
people saying the begals and steelers belong above the jets make me laugh. last year you werent better than the jets when they were in a defensive transition year, had no RB, and had their Qb coming into his first season after 2 shoulder surgeries. with a healthy chad pennington, the second year in the 34, 2 huge defensive additions, and thomas jones at RB you really think you deserve to move past a team that was better than you in the first place?

Way to only look into the Jets problems and avoid the Steelers/Bengals.

ncstateviking
07-18-2007, 10:59 AM
well...i see the bengals as having an improved season. but what im saying is the jets were better in first place and improved. i dont think the bengals made up the ground and passed the jets.

PalmerToCJ
07-18-2007, 11:06 AM
well...i see the bengals as having an improved season. but what im saying is the jets were better in first place and improved. i dont think the bengals made up the ground and passed the jets.

The Jets had a WAY easier schedule last year than the Bengals, so their record doesn't indicate that they're better. The Bengals were less an all-pro LT 14 games, our anchor C 14 games... At one point we had 3 players on our line with 10 games combined career experience (one of which was starting his first game ever at OL... At any level). We lost Odell, meaning Caleb Miller or Brian Simmons had to fill his role which killed.

This year we have Ahmad Brooks at middle which is a massive improvement, Odell I think will eventually end up as our WLB making our LB core 10X what it was last year. Then one more year for Robert Geathers/Domata Peko to improve, along with no Tory James and our D should improve. Our offense will prove due to the Oline and Carson being on two good legs, his accuracy suffered last year due to the leg injury. Plus we have an easier schedule than last year... We played New England, San Diego, Indy, Baltimore, Denver, New Orleans, Kansas City (@ Arrowhead). This year it's just the NFC West, AFC East and the Titans/Chiefs which IMO are teams that will regress this year.

Hines
07-18-2007, 12:05 PM
The Jets had a WAY easier schedule last year than the Bengals, so their record doesn't indicate that they're better. The Bengals were less an all-pro LT 14 games, our anchor C 14 games... At one point we had 3 players on our line with 10 games combined career experience (one of which was starting his first game ever at OL... At any level). We lost Odell, meaning Caleb Miller or Brian Simmons had to fill his role which killed.

This year we have Ahmad Brooks at middle which is a massive improvement, Odell I think will eventually end up as our WLB making our LB core 10X what it was last year. Then one more year for Robert Geathers/Domata Peko to improve, along with no Tory James and our D should improve. Our offense will prove due to the Oline and Carson being on two good legs, his accuracy suffered last year due to the leg injury. Plus we have an easier schedule than last year... We played New England, San Diego, Indy, Baltimore, Denver, New Orleans, Kansas City (@ Arrowhead). This year it's just the NFC West, AFC East and the Titans/Chiefs which IMO are teams that will regress this year.



so your sayin the steelers arent good =(

OhioState
07-18-2007, 12:34 PM
i don't like that he has cleveland last as i see them maybe winning 6-7 games this season.

jag
07-18-2007, 01:11 PM
wow, those rankings are terrible. Cleveland last?

PalmerToCJ
07-18-2007, 02:00 PM
so your sayin the steelers arent good =(

Well, not so much last year. You all, much like us, had your fair share of bad luck last year.

Sniper
07-18-2007, 02:05 PM
Yet another year? The Titans have only picked in the top 5 once in recent years. In fact before VY, the last time was when they picked McNair.

And they also had one of the league's toughest schedules last season, and picked 19th.

Here's why:

1. Vince Young. He's gonna get hurt. It will happen. Brace yourself for it.
2. LenDale White (whom I loved coming out of USC) is eating his way out of the league.
3. You have no wideouts
4. Your best corner/returner may never play again.

Good enough for starters.

Hines
07-18-2007, 02:06 PM
Well, not so much last year. You all, much like us, had your fair share of bad luck last year.

ya and this year i believe we will be back on top,well hopefully...ben is back at 240 now so that will be good for us

nfrillman
07-19-2007, 02:14 AM
The first thing I'm going to mention here is the debate over the Minnesota defense last season, particularly the run defense. It seems that everyone is forgetting that the Vikings had the worst pass defense in the league. I am of the belief that the Viking run defense was definitely top 10 in the league, but that coupled with the fact that the pass defense was weak, one must assume that other teams realized it would be smarter to attack the clearly weaker unit of the Viking's defense. The tendency of other teams to do this makes the defensive passing stats look worse than they actually were, while making the run defense stats look better than they actually were. Here is some evidence to help illustrate what I am saying.

The Vikings were run against 348 times (least in the league), the next closest team was the Ravens at 367 times, past that was the Pats at 388. Twenty-three teams had the ball run against them over 440 times. On the flip side, the Vikings were passed agains 599 times (most in the league), followed by the Bears at 581 and the Giants with 567. Twenty-eight teams were passed on 540 times or fewer. One more point, the Raiders gave up the least pass yards per game by 9 fewer than the Colts, and 28 fewer than the next team, the Saints. Now ask yourself, was that because the Raiders pass defense was just flat out amazing, or a statistical anomally.

Now, for the actual rankings. My quick assessment on who is too high and too low.

Too High:
Saints.... I like the story, but we must remember they were just 10-6 last year.
Broncos..... Defense is admittedly scary, especially pass D, but that's asking a lot of a 2nd year QB
Jets..... Jets did get better in the offseason, but they had a wicked easy schedule last year. So with a harder schedule and some improvements, I think they should be happy with 10-6 again, more likely the 7-9 to 9-7 range.
Steelers..... This is more of a gut feeling, I look at their roster and just don't see much that looks scary. I would be a little worried if I were a Steelers fan.
Lions...... I can sum this up in three letters, WTF???
Titans..... I loved watching Young's antics last season, but statistically he wasn't that good. On top of that they have virtually nothing else on the entire team.

Too Low:
Jacksonville..... Every year I think to myself, "Man the Jags are overrated," but they keep winning. They must find a way to not lose to the Titans and Texans so much though.
Cincinnati....... Palmer was good last year, but he clearly wasn't "right". I expect him to play better this year.
Some of the teams towards the bottom (Browns, Vikes, Bucs, GB, Miami) I think could move up a couple spots, but not enough spots for me to really complain about them.

OzTitan
07-19-2007, 05:38 AM
Here's why:

1. Vince Young. He's gonna get hurt. It will happen. Brace yourself for it.
2. LenDale White (whom I loved coming out of USC) is eating his way out of the league.
3. You have no wideouts
4. Your best corner/returner may never play again.

Good enough for starters.

Um, well my post was actually responding to the reasoning of the other post and correcting a few statements that were misleading. I didn't say the Titans had no reasons to struggle....just argued against the points he brought up because they weren't logical and/or accurate.

In any case, the 4 points you bring up are trivial at best as well. Only 3 are serious, and of the 3, 2 are wild cards (LenDale and the WR's), and the 4th is not a team killer. Besides, unproven players at positions doesn't automatically mean those positions will suck, that's how stars are born.

Diehard
07-19-2007, 10:02 AM
Besides, unproven players at positions doesn't automatically mean those positions will suck, that's how stars are born.

I'm somewhat surprised they didn't make more of an effort to solidify the cast around VY given his play last year. It just seems like the right time to get a nucleus of proven performers together on offense to give Vince the opportunity to really show what he can do.

Looking at the Titan's offseason/draft, I think it would be pretty tough to expect any improvement out of them this year... more than likely they will be taking a step back.

jag
07-19-2007, 10:43 AM
The first thing I'm going to mention here is the debate over the Minnesota defense last season, particularly the run defense. It seems that everyone is forgetting that the Vikings had the worst pass defense in the league. I am of the belief that the Viking run defense was definitely top 10 in the league, but that coupled with the fact that the pass defense was weak, one must assume that other teams realized it would be smarter to attack the clearly weaker unit of the Viking's defense. The tendency of other teams to do this makes the defensive passing stats look worse than they actually were, while making the run defense stats look better than they actually were. Here is some evidence to help illustrate what I am saying.

The Vikings were run against 348 times (least in the league), the next closest team was the Ravens at 367 times, past that was the Pats at 388. Twenty-three teams had the ball run against them over 440 times. On the flip side, the Vikings were passed agains 599 times (most in the league), followed by the Bears at 581 and the Giants with 567. Twenty-eight teams were passed on 540 times or fewer. One more point, the Raiders gave up the least pass yards per game by 9 fewer than the Colts, and 28 fewer than the next team, the Saints. Now ask yourself, was that because the Raiders pass defense was just flat out amazing, or a statistical anomally.

Now, for the actual rankings. My quick assessment on who is too high and too low.

Too High:
Saints.... I like the story, but we must remember they were just 10-6 last year.
Broncos..... Defense is admittedly scary, especially pass D, but that's asking a lot of a 2nd year QB
Jets..... Jets did get better in the offseason, but they had a wicked easy schedule last year. So with a harder schedule and some improvements, I think they should be happy with 10-6 again, more likely the 7-9 to 9-7 range.
Steelers..... This is more of a gut feeling, I look at their roster and just don't see much that looks scary. I would be a little worried if I were a Steelers fan.
Lions...... I can sum this up in three letters, WTF???
Titans..... I loved watching Young's antics last season, but statistically he wasn't that good. On top of that they have virtually nothing else on the entire team.

Too Low:
Jacksonville..... Every year I think to myself, "Man the Jags are overrated," but they keep winning. They must find a way to not lose to the Titans and Texans so much though.
Cincinnati....... Palmer was good last year, but he clearly wasn't "right". I expect him to play better this year.
Some of the teams towards the bottom (Browns, Vikes, Bucs, GB, Miami) I think could move up a couple spots, but not enough spots for me to really complain about them.
Great post, I agree with everything you said.

+rep

Go_Eagles77
07-19-2007, 10:58 AM
Why can't someone talk about the eagles without mentioning Kevin Kolb anymore? I'm not gonna argue with the spot, although I really think it should be a little higher

OzTitan
07-19-2007, 11:09 AM
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't make more of an effort to solidify the cast around VY given his play last year. It just seems like the right time to get a nucleus of proven performers together on offense to give Vince the opportunity to really show what he can do.

Looking at the Titan's offseason/draft, I think it would be pretty tough to expect any improvement out of them this year... more than likely they will be taking a step back.

By not signing who exactly did they fail to solidify the cast? And I hardly call taking a WR at 19 "solidifying" the cast around VY, it's not like they passed on any serious weapons.

They tried to sign Stallworth, but he wanted to go to the Pats - who wouldn't. Well, that was before Moss was acquired, wonder if he regrets that now. He would have hardly been an improvement anyway, and that's the best FA had to offer with offensive weapons.

Not really sure what you expected them to do this offseason given the weak FA class and limited options in the draft. Anyway, this time last year, it was "tough" seeing any improvement for 06 as well. Solid teams are built through the draft, I guess we'll see how solid the 04, 05 and 06 classes have been for the Titans this season.

bearsfan_51
07-19-2007, 11:47 AM
I actually think the Bears are a little high considering the loss of players we've experienced this year. Then again the Colts lost quite a bit as well and they're still #1 so go figure...

bearsfan_51
07-19-2007, 11:49 AM
Actually after looking it over I'm not sure who I would put above us. You could make a case for Denver, Baltimore, or Philly, but they all have their questions as well.

Tubby
07-19-2007, 12:04 PM
Denver, Detroit, and St. Louis are all too high
Minnesota is too low

Larry
07-19-2007, 01:34 PM
Detroit at 14 is a joke, they will right back in the top 10 in next years draft.

Aftermath
07-19-2007, 02:03 PM
Saints also went 1-3 against the AFC North last year, only beat Cleveland and it was only by like 4 points.

Diehard
07-19-2007, 05:09 PM
Not really sure what you expected them to do this offseason given the weak FA class and limited options in the draft.

Keeping Travis Henry would've been a good start. Stallworth wasn't the only WR available - Kevin Curtis was a FA and Darrell Jackson was on the trading block (I'm sure Seattle would've preferred sending him to the AFC rather than a division rival).

I agree that taking a WR at 19 wouldn't really 'solidify' anything, as receivers often have trouble with the transition to the NFL. All the more reason to acquire a veteran WR to help VY out.

Sniper
07-19-2007, 05:18 PM
Um, well my post was actually responding to the reasoning of the other post and correcting a few statements that were misleading. I didn't say the Titans had no reasons to struggle....just argued against the points he brought up because they weren't logical and/or accurate.

In any case, the 4 points you bring up are trivial at best as well. Only 3 are serious, and of the 3, 2 are wild cards (LenDale and the WR's), and the 4th is not a team killer. Besides, unproven players at positions doesn't automatically mean those positions will suck, that's how stars are born.

Nuh uh man. #1 is dead-ass serious. It will happen. Come on, VY has no supporting cast. Someone's gonna tee off on him and he'll get hurt.

Boston
07-19-2007, 05:47 PM
If I heard the Lions were 11 spots ahead of the Packers, I would think we were dead last...

wogitalia
07-20-2007, 06:36 AM
. Last year they were so much better than any other team in run defense. I think it was a fluke. They just don't have the personnel to be truly that good of a run defense.

We really weren't that good against the run. We just didnt have the pass defense to make teams run so they didnt. I mean if you can throw for 20 yards a play and be basically guarenteed first downs, why run the ball?

For me though the three worst teams in the league are Minny, Oakland and Houston. All 3 have nothing at QB, very little at WR, not much at RB(Minny at least has a stud rookie, the other 2 have nothing). Minny does have a decent line which the others dont but we also have a moron coach which cancels it out. Personally I think Houston are the worst team in the league, then Oakland then Minny.

Detroit, Cleveland, Arizona and Tampa Bay are all teams that can be good or really bad depending on how a few things go. Personally I think that Arizona will make the step up because they have a legit QB and made some nice moves in regards to their O-Line. Cleveland are very good everywhere but RB, WR and QB but they have potential at all 3. Frye could yet get it, Brady is a legit talent. Edwards is a talent, if he can get some support they are fine. Lewis can still be accountable at RB. Detroit could have one of the leagues top offenses if the line can do anything and Kitna plays well. Defensively they are solid and should be better again this year.

BlindSite
07-20-2007, 07:15 AM
Nuh uh man. #1 is dead-ass serious. It will happen. Come on, VY has no supporting cast. Someone's gonna tee off on him and he'll get hurt.

You cannot possibly predict that.

Sniper
07-20-2007, 07:33 AM
You cannot possibly predict that.

I just did :)

TitanHope
07-21-2007, 03:28 PM
Then you're a fool, SNIPER26.

Hmmm, Top 15 seems a bit generous, but I won't argue with it. We could go 6-7 to 8-8 with our schedule, so a +7/-7 ranking handicap can be given this early in the season.

Sniper
07-21-2007, 03:39 PM
Then you're a fool, SNIPER26.

Hmmm, Top 15 seems a bit generous, but I won't argue with it. We could go 6-7 to 8-8 with our schedule, so a +7/-7 ranking handicap can be given this early in the season.

And when I'm right, will I still be a fool?

rainbeaukid2
07-21-2007, 03:43 PM
i think that the niners are too low personally

TitanHope
07-21-2007, 03:53 PM
And when I'm right, will I still be a fool?

Yes. Its one thing to make a guess that a mobile quarterback will be injured, but to be adamant about something that you have no idea will happen is quite foolish.

Sniper
07-21-2007, 04:11 PM
Yes. Its one thing to make a guess that a mobile quarterback will be injured, but to be adamant about something that you have no idea will happen is quite foolish.

Mmmmmmmmmmmkay. Quick question. How do we usually predict what will happen on a yearly basis? Usually if the circumstances around a player don't change much we go by track record. Track record says the Madden coverboy gets hurt. I'm gonna go by track record, we'll see who's right at the end of the season.

TitanHope
07-21-2007, 07:14 PM
http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/maddencurse.asp

Especially read the last paragraph after the years/players are listed. Not all the cover athletes got hurt, but most recently they have had injuries. Vince Young could stub his toe for all we know, and the Madden Curse could be blamed for it. If someone wants to believe in something, they'll find a way to make it true.

Moses
07-21-2007, 11:37 PM
Mmmmmmmmmmmkay. Quick question. How do we usually predict what will happen on a yearly basis? Usually if the circumstances around a player don't change much we go by track record. Track record says the Madden coverboy gets hurt. I'm gonna go by track record, we'll see who's right at the end of the season.

You're making a fundamental error in your analysis.

Correlation does not imply causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Sniper
07-21-2007, 11:41 PM
You're making a fundamental error in your analysis.

Correlation does not imply causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Alright then. I'm merely predicting VY will get injured then. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. Still doesn't change the fact that they're not going to be good.

Moses
07-21-2007, 11:46 PM
Alright then. I'm merely predicting VY will get injured then. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. Still doesn't change the fact that they're not going to be good.

Why would you make a prediction with absolutely no basis for it?

Sniper
07-21-2007, 11:58 PM
Why would you make a prediction with absolutely no basis for it?

Because I'm a firm believer in the Madden Curse, hence I'm going by that.

Moses
07-22-2007, 12:01 AM
Because I'm a firm believer in the Madden Curse, hence I'm going by that.

What makes you believe in the Madden curse?

Sniper
07-22-2007, 12:05 AM
What makes you believe in the Madden curse?

Eddie George, Daunte Culpepper, Marshall Faulk, Mike Vick, Ray Lewis, Donovan McNabb and Shaun Alexander. I know it's a coincidence and all, but hey it's kinda weird.

LonghornsLegend
07-22-2007, 02:02 AM
But do you realize the amount of players that get hurt every year? It is football were talking about, unless they pick favre, manning, or LT you almost expect some type of injury at some point in their career....I actually think VY will surprise everyone once again, he doesnt really need alot of dynamic WR's on the outside...he's not leinart, he will make alot of throws on the run, and norm chow will still put things into the offense like last year that taylor to youngs strengths...

Flyboy
07-22-2007, 02:05 AM
Saints at 4? Anyone else think thats way too high?

Me and that's coming from a Saints fan.

badgerbacker
07-22-2007, 01:48 PM
You're making a fundamental error in your analysis.

Correlation does not imply causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The correlation/causation thing doesn't matter at all. We don't need to know that the Madden cover is "causing" injuries or bad seasons, just that there is a high correlation between being on the cover and getting hurt. To say that the Madden curse is causing players to get hurt, of course is foolish and cannot be proven. What he's saying is that, many players who have been on the cover, have been injured. So since VY is on the cover, there is a high possibility that he will be injured because of some lurking variable connecting him and the other cover athletes.

(I'm not trying to be on anyone's side, this is just the statistics part of me coming out.)

Gribble
07-22-2007, 01:55 PM
I thought we were talking about rankings?

Moses
07-22-2007, 04:00 PM
The correlation/causation thing doesn't matter at all. We don't need to know that the Madden cover is "causing" injuries or bad seasons, just that there is a high correlation between being on the cover and getting hurt. To say that the Madden curse is causing players to get hurt, of course is foolish and cannot be proven. What he's saying is that, many players who have been on the cover, have been injured. So since VY is on the cover, there is a high possibility that he will be injured because of some lurking variable connecting him and the other cover athletes.

(I'm not trying to be on anyone's side, this is just the statistics part of me coming out.)

You honeslty don't understand that? It's a coincidence. That's the whole point. You're no more likely to be hurt if you're on the Madden cover.

badgerbacker
07-22-2007, 04:30 PM
You honeslty don't understand that? It's a coincidence. That's the whole point. You're no more likely to be hurt if you're on the Madden cover.I absolutely agree that it is a complete coincidence. I was just saying if you wanted to use the correlation not causation argument it wouldn't make any sense. If you used that you are saying that there is indeed a correlation between being on the cover and an increased probability of getting injured.

I agree with you that it doesn't increase VY's chances of being injured. You just have to see that people in favor of the curse are just trying to show that there is at least a correlation, even if it is an unexplained one.

Moses
07-22-2007, 04:36 PM
I absolutely agree that it is a complete coincidence. I was just saying if you wanted to use the correlation not causation argument it wouldn't make any sense. If you used that you are saying that there is indeed a correlation between being on the cover and an increased probability of getting injured.

I agree with you that it doesn't increase VY's chances of being injured. You just have to see that people in favor of the curse are just trying to show that there is at least a correlation, even if it is an unexplained one.

So it's irrelevant then...

badgerbacker
07-22-2007, 04:51 PM
So it's irrelevant then...
That's basically what I was trying to get at with my first rambling post. Your correlation/causation thing that you brought up is irrelevant to try to prove any kind of point.

But back on topic...

Someone earlier was asking why the Vikings were so low and then provided information that they had in fact improved at numerous positions and so they couldn't possibly be worse than last year. The thing you have to understand is that nearly every team in the NFL believes they have improved and so while you may have a slightly better receiving core and a stronger running game, you still have the pride of Alabama State running your offense.

Moses
07-22-2007, 04:52 PM
That's basically what I was trying to get at with my first rambling post. Your correlation/causation thing that you brought up is irrelevant to try to prove any kind of point.

Huh? How is pointing out that the Madden Curse is not true irrelevant?

badgerbacker
07-22-2007, 05:03 PM
Huh? How is pointing out that the Madden Curse is not true irrelevant?
Please keep in mind that I agree with you that the "Madden Curse" is foolish. I am just trying to play Devil's advocate because I'm bored on a Sunday.


You simply pointed out that being put on the Madden Cover does not CAUSE you to become injured. The fact still remains that there is a high correlation between being on the cover and an athlete getting injured. Look again at the wikipedia article you posted.
"In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A is correlated with B" You cannot use the Correlation does not imply causation as a way to say something is false, it can simply use it to say that further investigation is needed.

Shiver
07-23-2007, 10:52 AM
If Vince Young gets hurt it will be because he is a running Quarterback, not because he's on the cover of Madden. It isn't a coincidence that most scrambling Quarterbacks have a lot of injuries. The odds are against him staying healthy because of that fact. Norm Chow is even telling him to run more in '07.

Moses
07-23-2007, 11:00 AM
Please keep in mind that I agree with you that the "Madden Curse" is foolish. I am just trying to play Devil's advocate because I'm bored on a Sunday.


You simply pointed out that being put on the Madden Cover does not CAUSE you to become injured. The fact still remains that there is a high correlation between being on the cover and an athlete getting injured. Look again at the wikipedia article you posted.
"In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A is correlated with B" You cannot use the Correlation does not imply causation as a way to say something is false, it can simply use it to say that further investigation is needed.

Common sense would dictate that being on the cover of a video game would have no effect on your on-the-field play in real life. The whole Madden Curse is based on the fact that certain Madden cover athletes have been injured. Since this is just a coincidence (correlation, not causation), it is a meaningless "curse". We're mostly agreeing here.