PDA

View Full Version : 3rd Annual NFLDC Power Rankings


nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 06:44 PM
Alright, here we are with a couple weeks left before the season starts and we are set to start the NFLDC Power Rankings for a 3rd time. As always, we will go from the bottom to top--#32 to #1.

These power rankings are set by you, the fan on NFLDC. You vote for the team you believe is worst in the pool and the team with the most votes will "win" the spot and we will move on. In some cases, when there is a clear difference between the #2 and the rest of the field, the team that comes in 2nd place in the poll will also be awarded the next spot. Depending on who quickly we get these polls filled up, we will probably be using this rule a lot since we are starting so late in the exhibition season.

Finally, a couple things to mention before you click "Submit" on your poll choice:

1. We can't have every team up as a poll choice and not everyone is going to agree on which team goes where, so just vote for the available team that you think is the worst.

2. It's difficult, I know, but don't let your personal biases cloud your judgment. I know you Cowboy fans hate your rivals, but in all honesty, Philadelphia, Washington and New York do not make up the bottom three teams in the league.

So let's roll!!



*EDIT* I totally forgot Atlanta. They are officially a write-in option. If you think they will be the worst, make a post saying so.

etk
08-24-2007, 06:46 PM
May the homer fest begin!!!

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 06:47 PM
Sorry Texans' fans, but Matt Schaub is not the answer... You are the weakest link.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 06:53 PM
Sorry Texans' fans, but Matt Schaub is not the answer... You are the weakest link.

You didn't submit your vote yet...

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 06:54 PM
You didn't submit your vote yet...

Sorry, it was before the poll was up. Now it is there...

I can guess that every Cowboys fan will vote for the Browns.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 06:54 PM
Sorry, it was before the poll was up. Now it is there...

I can guess that every Cowboys fan will vote for the Browns.

Ah, understood.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 06:56 PM
I'm torn right now. I honestly don't know who to pick myself... Obviously you have the Raiders as an option, but I also have real problems with the Dolphins, Browns and Cardinals. I really don't like Minnesota's situation either.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 06:57 PM
I'm loving the option to make it a public poll too. Something we've been missing the last two years with things like this.

The Unseen
08-24-2007, 06:58 PM
I voted Dolphins. The Raiders were also in my thought process.

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 07:00 PM
I voted Dolphins. The Raiders were also in my thought process.

The reason why I won't vote for either of those teams is because they have pretty good defenses. Won't win them a lot, but at least some.

yodabear
08-24-2007, 07:03 PM
My choice is the Browns. Brady Quinn came in two weeks late, and he is in better position to start more than Frye and Anderson. And I don't think Quinn is the answer. Cowboys will have the #1 pick. Yuck.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:03 PM
Ok, I think I'm going to go with the Vikings. I say this only because it is so terribly rare for a team to repeat #1 overall. I also think that when Frye/Anderson falter, Quinn will step in and win a couple games to bring the Browns back to a 3-5 draft position. The Cardinals just get by because of the biggest upgrade to their offensive line being Russ Grimms and I think Schaub and company will do at least mediocre this year. Miami is in a really tough situation. I don't think Green will last and I don't think Beck will do well this year. My personal bottom 5 I think will go:

(from worst to not so bad)
Minnesota
Oakland
Miami
Cleveland
Arizona
I also don't think any teams will have more than 12 losses this year. I think Minny will get about 4 wins, Oakland will get around 4-5 wins and Miami, Cleveland, Arizona and Houston will be in the 5-6 range..

Shiver
08-24-2007, 07:04 PM
I voted Miami. They have a horrible offensive line, receivers who cannot catch, a 37 year old QB with a scrambled brain and a defense that smacks of last year's Buccaneers' dropoff.

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 07:06 PM
I voted Miami. They have a horrible offensive line, receivers who cannot catch, a 37 year old QB with a scrambled brain and a defense that smacks of last year's Buccaneers' dropoff.

I could have sworn John Beck was only 33 or 34.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:06 PM
I could have sworn John Beck was only 33 or 34.

Oh that was harsh. But funny.

Shiver
08-24-2007, 07:07 PM
Well done Turtle, bravo.

yodabear
08-24-2007, 07:14 PM
32 Browns
31 Raiders
30 Vikings
29 Lions
28 Dolphins
27 Buccaneers
26 Texans
25 Cardinals

Thats how I rank them

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:15 PM
32 Browns
31 Raiders
30 Vikings
29 Lions
28 Dolphins
27 Buccaneers
26 Texans
25 Cardinals

Thats how I rank them

+rep for not having the Raiders last place.

Haha, j/k

yodabear
08-24-2007, 07:19 PM
I am wearing a Michael Vick jersey right now.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:20 PM
I am wearing a Michael Vick jersey right now.

Oh crud, I forgot about the Falcons....

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 07:22 PM
Oh crud, I forgot about the Falcons....

I say forget about them for this round. Maybe 1 or 2 people will think they are the worst. If you really want to add them, get rid of the Cardinals. They will consistently muster at least 5-6 wins with that offense of theirs.

yodabear
08-24-2007, 07:24 PM
Oh crud, I forgot about the Falcons....

We all know they are at least #20 with the monster that is Joey Harrington.

KILLERSANTA
08-24-2007, 07:26 PM
No KC or Giants?

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:28 PM
No KC or Giants?

I was close to putting KC on there. They're in the mix in the next couple rounds.

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 07:30 PM
No KC or Giants?

I know this is homerish, but this is also the truth. If someone thinks that the Giants are the worst team in the league... Then they are just being stupid.

KILLERSANTA
08-24-2007, 07:31 PM
I was close to putting KC on there. They're in the mix in the next couple rounds.

Good, I can see both of them teams having top 10 picks....

yo123
08-24-2007, 07:34 PM
hmmm... The Vikings and Raiders will both be bad, but I think there defenses will be enough to keep them out of the #1 pick. I dont think the Lions should even be on this list, especially in the North. They could finish 7-9 or 8-8. The Cardinals have to much offensive firepower to finish dead last, but will probably only win about 5 games. With the Browns improved O-line and Jamal "hes gotta be better than Reuben Droughns" Lewis, I dont see them being quite bad enough. That leaves the Bucs, Dolphins, and Texans. At least the Dolphins have a couple of weapons on offense and a good defense, more than the others can say. Between the Bucs and Texans, I like the Bucs a little more, Im not buying Matt Schaub as a starting QB

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:35 PM
I know this is homerish, but this is also the truth. If someone thinks that the Giants are the worst team in the league... Then they are just being stupid.

That's why I didn't put them in this one. For the Giants, and I knew there would be a couple people calling for them, I could see maybe a 5-10 pick, but they could also win a lot more games.

Still, this is a fan-run poll so if people keep mentioning NY, they will be in the next poll.

duckseason
08-24-2007, 07:35 PM
Call me crazy, but I've actually got the Titans picking first next year.
And I think a few of the poll options could be serious playoff contenders.

The Unseen
08-24-2007, 07:37 PM
The reason why I won't vote for either of those teams is because they have pretty good defenses. Won't win them a lot, but at least some.

Raiders went 2-14 with a good defense.

The phrase "offense wins games, defense wins championships" is true. However, people sometimes forget that the first part is equally true. People like to emphasize the second part because that's what counts in the end, but there are always a good amount of teams that have good defense, bad offenses, and then a bad record. Teams with good offense and bad defenses seem to have fewer bad records than the other way around.

Shiver
08-24-2007, 07:39 PM
I would put KC and ATL in before I would put in Houston. I personally think Houston will be closer to .500 than the no. 1 overall pick.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 07:40 PM
Where's Atlanta?

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 07:42 PM
I would put KC and ATL in before I would put in Houston. I personally think Houston will be closer to .500 than the no. 1 overall pick.

I'm just not bought on Matt Schaub as a starter yet and I see Jacksonville playing to their potential and winning 9-10 games this year. I see Houston winning only about 2 divisional games, but that is just my opinion. I was high on them last year, but I always liked Carr and think he will replace Delhomme after this season.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:42 PM
Raiders went 2-14 with a good defense.

The phrase "offense wins games, defense wins championships" is true. However, people sometimes forget that the first part is equally true. People like to emphasize the second part because that's what counts in the end, but there are always a good amount of teams that have good defense, bad offenses, and then a bad record. Teams with good offense and bad defenses seem to have fewer bad records than the other way around.

A mediocre offense can get a good defense 6-8 wins though. The problem is that the Raiders were absolutely horrific on offense last season. We're talking bottom 5 ever.

wiscbadgerfootball
08-24-2007, 07:43 PM
homerfest 07!!! whoo I'm gonna say the Browns even though my boy Joe Thomas is on the team

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 07:44 PM
Where's Atlanta?

Check the first post again--I forgot them. If you think they're the worst team, just say so in a post and we'll count all the write-ins at the end of the poll.

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 07:45 PM
Raiders went 2-14 with a good defense.

The phrase "offense wins games, defense wins championships" is true. However, people sometimes forget that the first part is equally true. People like to emphasize the second part because that's what counts in the end, but there are always a good amount of teams that have good defense, bad offenses, and then a bad record. Teams with good offense and bad defenses seem to have fewer bad records than the other way around.

People underestimate a healthy Lamont Jordan and I think this will be a breakout year for Gallery.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 07:46 PM
Check the first post again--I forgot them. If you think they're the worst team, just say so in a post and we'll count all the write-ins at the end of the poll.

Ok, that's what I'll say. And I might as well defend my team.

Guys, Oakland is in the same situation as the Browns except their bridge QB is worse, their drafted QB will take longer to adjust to the NFL and my not even be on the team at the start of the season, and the Raiders didn't get the top guard in free agency, and a tackle with the 3rd pick in the draft.Come on.

The Unseen
08-24-2007, 07:47 PM
A mediocre offense can get a good defense 6-8 wins though. The problem is that the Raiders were absolutely horrific on offense last season. We're talking bottom 5 ever.

Hypothetically, yes.

All situations really depend on the team and the year; there's no regular way about it. However, I think a team with a better offense than defense has a better chance of winning more games than a team with a better defense than offense, ergo the whole "offense wins games" part.

M.O.T.H.
08-24-2007, 07:49 PM
This is tough...I think Oakland will surprise some...I actually like them more than KC actually. I'm still undecided...I'll vote eventually.

duckseason
08-24-2007, 07:50 PM
Has anybody picked first in consecutive years since the Jackson/Testaverde Bucs?

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 08:09 PM
Ok, that's what I'll say. And I might as well defend my team.

Guys, Oakland is in the same situation as the Browns except their bridge QB is worse, their drafted QB will take longer to adjust to the NFL and my not even be on the team at the start of the season, and the Raiders didn't get the top guard in free agency, and a tackle with the 3rd pick in the draft.Come on.

The Browns' defense is nowhere the level of the Raiders.

diabsoule
08-24-2007, 08:16 PM
I think the Kansas City Chiefs will be the worst team this year. They have a very old defense and that combined with shoddy quarterback play, a terrible offensive line, and only two weapons on offense will make them the worst team in the NFL this year.

For evidence watch the first half of this weeks pre-season game against the Saints where the Saints just carved up the Chiefs defense and constantly harassed their offense.

LSUALUM99
08-24-2007, 08:16 PM
I actually don't know if you can afford to pick first 2 years in a row in the Salary Cap era. If you bust on a top 2 player as it stands now your team is set back a few years, imagine busting on 2!!!

Turtlepower
08-24-2007, 08:18 PM
Well the Browns won, they were the first to 8.

Also, don't forget that this is Power Rankings and not draft position. You could argue that the worst team in the league might not have the worst record. I'm not saying this is really true, but it is entirely possible.

nobodyinparticular
08-24-2007, 08:18 PM
I actually don't know if you can afford to pick first 2 years in a row in the Salary Cap era. If you bust on a top 2 player as it stands now your team is set back a few years, imagine busting on 2!!!

But if they both succeed, you're in pretty good business.

Still, you're right. That is a ton of money to have wrapped up in two players. Especially ones who have never played in the league.

duckseason
08-24-2007, 08:23 PM
I'll take this opportunity to go on record as having the Vikings in the playoffs. Yes, with Tarvaris as their QB, but not necessarily because of him. I love their trench game on both sides of the ball and I think AD will be a beast behind some of those road graders, along with their other solid backs. But, I think that division is wide open and I could see any of the 4 winning it. And no, that's not a knock on the Bears. I just think the Vikings have all the makings of a playoff-caliber team depending on how you feel about Tarvaris and their overall passing game. I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where they find themselves in the cellar. I think a rash of key injuries would have a lot to do with it though. Just not seeing it.

neko4
08-24-2007, 08:34 PM
Aside from the Cards, Lions and Bucs, they all deserve to be numero uno,
Miami, Oakland, Houston, and Minny all suck equally IMO, but my packer homerism pushed Minny just above the rest.

M.O.T.H.
08-24-2007, 08:37 PM
Well, I'm not sold on the Vikes being a playoff team but, I do however do not think they belong up there with the worst in the league. Another team that could surprise...running game should be excellent and Jackson has been looking real good.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:06 PM
The Browns' defense is nowhere the level of the Raiders.


See, that's just not true. The Browns have a very good linebacking corps with very good depth (Wimbley-D'Qwell-Andra-McGinest/Peek since Willie's injured). And Leon Williams is someone that the coaching staff is very high on.

In the secondary, they have Leigh Bodden who's always a great cover corner, and Eric Wright who has looked ab-so-lutely brilliant so far. Plus a safety who should have made the pro bowl in Sean Jones and a good versatile safety who only didn't have his breakout season last year because injuries forced him to play CB.

The D-Line isn't good, but it's not horribly bad. When Roye is healthy, they have good depth and Ted can still play in the middle. The Browns defense is at least equal to the Raiders.

And the offense is better. And the Browns added more in the offseason. Need I remind you the Raiders finished 2 games behind the Browns last year?

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:13 PM
Did you really try and argue that the Browns have a defense that's in the same class as the Raiders?

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:14 PM
Did you really try and argue that the Browns have a defense that's in the same class as the Raiders?

Yes. There a problem with that? I made my point perfectly clear and spelled out why that is so.

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:15 PM
I'm just not bought on Matt Schaub as a starter yet and I see Jacksonville playing to their potential and winning 9-10 games this year. I see Houston winning only about 2 divisional games, but that is just my opinion. I was high on them last year, but I always liked Carr and think he will replace Delhomme after this season.

If Fox puts in Carr for Delhomme he should be fired on the spot. If you look up ineptitude in the dictionary this picture will be adjacent to it:

http://blog.kir.com/archives/David%20Carr%20grimacing2.jpg

Schaub > Carr
Green > Dayne
Defense = all have another year under their belts

That should be enough to buy a handful of wins, let alone regress.

yo123
08-24-2007, 09:15 PM
Well, I'm not sold on the Vikes being a playoff team but, I do however do not think they belong up there with the worst in the league. Another team that could surprise...running game should be excellent and Jackson has been looking real good.



Finally someone who is ready to give Tavaris a chance to prove himself before jumping to conclusions

M.O.T.H.
08-24-2007, 09:16 PM
Well, there is in no way that the Browns defense is equal to that of the Raiders. Right now, that is a super bowl caliber defense.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:18 PM
Well, there is in no way that the Browns defense is equal to that of the Raiders. Right now, that is a super bowl caliber defense.

I'm sick of overrating that defense because it has a crappy offense. They were in the middle of the pack in almost everything last year. I know they were on the field a lot, so's the Ravens defense, Bears defense, Miami defense, they were all better. The super bowl caliber defenses are Ravens, Patriots, Bears, those are the only teams that could ride their defense to the Super Bowl. The Raiders are only a bit above the middle of the pack.

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:19 PM
Yes. There a problem with that? I made my point perfectly clear and spelled out why that is so.

Well, just so you know, no one will take that "argument" seriously. All you did was name players on the Browns that you think are good, without any shred of quantifiable evidence. It's not as if the Raiders have lost any of their players, in fact I would say they've improved. The Browns were the the cellar in most statistical categories.

KILLERSANTA
08-24-2007, 09:22 PM
If the browns D is better then DeRaiders, then, Dallas' O is better then the colts.....

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:29 PM
Well, just so you know, no one will take that "argument" seriously. All you did was name players on the Browns that you think are good, without any shred of quantifiable evidence.

Ok then. Kamerion Wimbley had 11 sacks last year, with not much in front of him at DE. D'Qwell made up for a down year from Andra Davis, who still tackles very well and is quick to take down the runner, by contributing 93 tackles in 13 games after impressing enough to get the start as a rookie. Willie struggled dealing through injuries and his stats look worse than he did. Sean Jones is a ballhawk, grabbing 5 interceptions and barely missing a few others. Brodney Pool had 8 passes defended despite playing at CB most of the year instead of safety. Leigh Bodden, it's hard to find stats because, like many CBs, he goes unnoticed because he doesn't get many opportunities to get interceptions, so I can't give you any stats on him really, and Eric Wright is coming out of college so, no experience but he's looked good, by good I mean the QBs are testing him and I've seen him stick stride for stride with the recievers and play the ball very well. With much more depth at DE, which was injury plagued last year, and a year of experience with the young offense you can only expect those numbers to improve.

M.O.T.H.
08-24-2007, 09:30 PM
I'm sick of overrating that defense because it has a crappy offense. They were in the middle of the pack in almost everything last year. I know they were on the field a lot, so's the Ravens defense, Bears defense, Miami defense, they were all better. The super bowl caliber defenses are Ravens, Patriots, Bears, those are the only teams that could ride their defense to the Super Bowl. The Raiders are only a bit above the middle of the pack.

They were on the field over 100 more times than the league average and still managed to be near the top of the league. Yes, you could argue they didnt see as many plays through the air but, what they did see they defended it beautifully, at times. They have a solid secondary that they are adding Darius to and they possess a nice pass rush. They are legit.

KILLERSANTA
08-24-2007, 09:33 PM
Ok then. Kamerion Wimbley had 11 sacks last year, with not much in front of him at DE. D'Qwell made up for a down year from Andra Davis, who still tackles very well and is quick to take down the runner, by contributing 93 tackles in 13 games after impressing enough to get the start as a rookie. Willie struggled dealing through injuries and his stats look worse than he did. Sean Jones is a ballhawk, grabbing 5 interceptions and barely missing a few others. Brodney Pool had 8 passes defended despite playing at CB most of the year instead of safety. Leigh Bodden, it's hard to find stats because, like many CBs, he goes unnoticed because he doesn't get many opportunities to get interceptions, so I can't give you any stats on him really, and Eric Wright is coming out of college so, no experience but he's looked good, by good I mean the QBs are testing him and I've seen him stick stride for stride with the recievers and play the ball very well. With much more depth at DE, which was injury plagued last year, and a year of experience with the young offense you can only expect those numbers to improve.


I agree with that 90% of the people on this forum overrate the Raiders D, I still gotta say it's better then the browns. Maybe this year the browns will be better, I'm just not seeing it.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:34 PM
They were on the field over 100 more times than the league average and still managed to be near the top of the league. Yes, you could argue they didnt see as many plays through the air but, what they did see they defended it beautifully, at times. They have a solid secondary that they are adding Darius to and they possess a nice pass rush. They are legit.

They weren't near the top of the league. They were in the middle of the pack. It's not like these guys were dominating. They gave up 24 points to Cleveland, 28 to Baltimore, 23 to Houston, 34 to San Francisco.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:37 PM
I agree with that 90% of the people on this forum overrate the Raiders D, I still gotta say it's better then the browns. Maybe this year the browns will be better, I'm just not seeing it.

Which is almost exactly what I'm saying. The Browns had Ted Washington, Simon Fraser (when Roye was injured), Kamerion Wimbley, D'Qwell Jackson, Willie McGinest, Brodney Pool, Sean Jones, and after Gary Baxter went down, Daven Holly. That's 8 new starters, at least ones who didn't start the year before. And they had plenty more at CB when Leigh Bodden was injury plagued. They're going to get better.

M.O.T.H.
08-24-2007, 09:40 PM
They weren't near the top of the league. They were in the middle of the pack. It's not like these guys were dominating. They gave up 24 points to Cleveland, 28 to Baltimore, 23 to Houston, 34 to San Francisco.

They were ranked 3rd...To understand the scoring, you first must understand how bad the offense was...when your on the field that long and your first in the NFL in give aways...your going to give up points.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:42 PM
They were ranked 3rd...To understand the scoring, you first must understand how bad the offense was...when your on the field that long and your first in the NFL in give aways...your going to give up points.

And the Browns were much better at that? I'm talking about coming into this year, I think last year the Raiders were better, but this year it'll be the Browns.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Browns defense is amazing, I just don't think the Raiders defense is all it's cracked up to be. Super Bowl Defenses don't go 2-14.

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, you probably wouldn't find a bigger fan of Kamerion Wimbley and Leigh Bodden here from a non-Browns fan. I still wouldn't put them in the same class as the Raiders, who've only added to it this off-season and won't have quite as bad of an offense forcing them into disadvantageous situations.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:47 PM
Don't get me wrong, you probably wouldn't find a bigger fan of Kamerion Wimbley and Leigh Bodden here from a non-Browns fan. I still wouldn't put them in the same class as the Raiders, who've only added to it this off-season and won't have quite as bad of an offense forcing them into disadvantageous situations.

How do ya figure, a not so bad offense? I thought all they did was get rid of their best reciever. I admit I didn't really follow their offseason moves, but I don't remember them adding anything groundbreaking besides Russell, who's still not signed. Who's their QB, Walter? I root for the guy, but he's not that good. And the Browns added two damn good offensive lineman and will be getting one back midway through the season. Plus a RB who doesn't suck...ok well, he sucks a bit less.

Windy
08-24-2007, 09:47 PM
guys like thomas howard who started as a rookie will continue to get better. add in huff, washington, asomugha, morrison etc. the only players "older" players who have significant playing time will be sapp and darius.

M.O.T.H.
08-24-2007, 09:48 PM
And the Browns were much better at that? I'm talking about coming into this year, I think last year the Raiders were better, but this year it'll be the Browns.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Browns defense is amazing, I just don't think the Raiders defense is all it's cracked up to be. Super Bowl Defenses don't go 2-14.

They do when your offense can barely muster 250 yards and 10 points per game and is turning the ball over nearly 3 times per game. I respect your opinion on the subject...we both have our views...but, yeah man...that D is as good as they come.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:52 PM
They do when your offense can barely muster 250 yards and 10 points per game and is turning the ball over nearly 3 times per game. I respect your opinion on the subject...we both have our views...but, yeah man...that D is as good as they come.

Well I disagree. Any defense that gives up 24 points to the Browns isn't as good as they come. I mean, the Browns got shut out by the BENGALS.

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:53 PM
How do ya figure, a not so bad offense? I thought all they did was get rid of their best reciever. I admit I didn't really follow their offseason moves, but I don't remember them adding anything groundbreaking besides Russell, who's still not signed. Who's their QB, Walter? I root for the guy, but he's not that good. And the Browns added two damn good offensive lineman and will be getting one back midway through the season. Plus a RB who doesn't suck...ok well, he sucks a bit less.

They didn't lose their best receiver, they got him back, that is Jerry Porter. Lane Kiffin doesn't hold silly feuds like Art Shell did. They add him and Zach Miller, Dominic Rhodes. Best of all the play-calling makes the O-Line better by default, i.e no constant 7-step drops called by Mr. Bed and Breakfast.

DaBears9654
08-24-2007, 09:53 PM
Finally someone who is ready to give Tavaris a chance to prove himself before jumping to conclusions
His rawness I think will be the Vikings' biggest problem. And he might turn out to be a pretty darn good quarterback for all anybody knows. If he does, I think they could surprise some people. I also think a lot of people forget that they had to go into a freefall to finish 6-10 last year. They won 4 of their first 6 games. Then, something happened and they were 2-8 the rest of the year. Not to mention a certain explosive tailback from Oklahoma they drafted.

Oh, btw, I voted for the Raiders.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 09:55 PM
They didn't lose their best receiver, they got him back, that is Jerry Porter. Lane Kiffin doesn't hold silly feuds like Art Shell did. They add him and Zach Miller, Dominic Rhodes. Best of all the play-calling makes the O-Line better by default, i.e no constant 7-step drops called by Mr. Bed and Breakfast.

Browns added a new OC who's innovating the offense as well...Miller is good, but an unexperienced rookie nonetheless...Rhodes had Indy's line last year and is missing the first 4 games anyway...does Porter matter if they have noone to throw it to him?

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:55 PM
Finally someone who is ready to give Tavaris a chance to prove himself before jumping to conclusions

He's a QB who completed 56% of his passes in D-II, has barely any NFL experience, struggled in his brief time last year and has horrible receivers. I think that is reason enough for pessimism...

Shiver
08-24-2007, 09:56 PM
Browns added a new OC who's innovating the offense as well...Miller is good, but an unexperienced rookie nonetheless...Rhodes had Indy's line last year and is missing the first 4 games anyway...does Porter matter if they have noone to throw it to him?

Well I did forget to mention that Daunte Culpepper looks a lot more healthy than he did did last year and Bill Parcells went out on the limb predicting a "Comeback Player of the Year" award for him. Culpepper at 80% > anyone on the Browns.

Flyboy
08-24-2007, 09:57 PM
I'm watching Culpepper right now against the Rams and he doesn't look that bad at all.

Windy
08-24-2007, 09:58 PM
even as a raider fan i can admit the offense won't be significantly better until the qb situation is solved but i totally believe the offensive line will be much better. they added guys who actually fit the system instead of paying out benjamins for the big name. plus the coaching additions are huge.

BrownsTown
08-24-2007, 10:00 PM
even as a raider fan i can admit the offense won't be significantly better until the qb situation is solved but i totally believe the offensive line will be much better. they added guys who actually fit the system instead of paying out benjamins for the big name. plus the coaching additions are huge.

Well the Browns coaching subtractions sure to happen at the bye week will be huge as well ;)

yodabear
08-24-2007, 10:17 PM
I'm watching Culpepper right now against the Rams and he doesn't look that bad at all.

The Rams should not be a barometer of success.

Smooth Criminal
08-24-2007, 10:30 PM
sorry I just don't think Minnesota wins more than 3 games this year. The offense is in shambles and while the defense was good against the run last year it was dreadful against the pass and it doesnt look any better this year. Plus I don't believe in Childress at alland think he will fail. With Tarvaris Jackson starting Idont think this team can be anything better than the worst.

Eagles own the NFC East
08-24-2007, 10:36 PM
i vote falcons but they arent a choice in the voting...

Jonny
08-24-2007, 10:39 PM
KC but Cleveland since they're not there.

etk
08-24-2007, 11:21 PM
I voted for the Brownies. Nothing about that team excites me except their young linebackers. I was really tempted to vote for the Bucs. Having the #1 pick would be nice but we won't be that bad. Should be close, though.

TimD
08-24-2007, 11:23 PM
The Rams should not be a barometer of success.

aren't you a rams fan?

duckseason
08-24-2007, 11:39 PM
I think one thing we can all count on is that the very bottom of the league will not be identical to what it was last year, like these poll results suggest. The idea here is to project who we think will be the worst team this year. You can bet that some of the bottom feeders from last year will be trading places with some of the playoff contenders. The way this poll is going, we might as well skip the formalities and just post the '06 standings.

JoeMontainya
08-25-2007, 12:21 AM
The Browns had over 8 starters out combine on O and D and only lost to the Colts and Chargers by a TD each. I think your making the Browns out to be worse than they really are especially since our OL is allowing Jamal Lewis to act like his old self in the playing time he has recieved in pre season. With our schedule we will start off slow, but when Quinn takes over we will go undefeated and win the super bowl against the Dolphins.

Shoot the Dolphins are in the AFC, I ment the Lions you crazy ass hole. Afterall we did almost beat them in preseason :)




IMO the Dolphins, Cheifs, Falcons, Raiders, Vikings, Bills and Giants will be not so good. I am even going to say that the Raiders beat the Broncos and the Broncos will finish around 6-10. I think the Steelers will have a losing record also.

IMO the #1 overall pick in the 2008 draft goes to the Buffalo Bills.

JoeMontainya
08-25-2007, 12:27 AM
I voted for the Brownies. Nothing about that team excites me except their young linebackers. I was really tempted to vote for the Bucs. Having the #1 pick would be nice but we won't be that bad. Should be close, though.

You mean to tell me Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, Kellen Winslow, Braylon Edwards, Leigh Bodden, Eric Wright, Sean Jones, and Brady Quinn do not excite you one bit?

steelersfan43
08-25-2007, 12:33 AM
i say titans get #1 pick

Shiver
08-25-2007, 12:43 AM
I think one thing we can all count on is that the very bottom of the league will not be identical to what it was last year, like these poll results suggest. The idea here is to project who we think will be the worst team this year. You can bet that some of the bottom feeders from last year will be trading places with some of the playoff contenders. The way this poll is going, we might as well skip the formalities and just post the '06 standings.

To be fair, I bet Kansas City and Atlanta will be in the top-5, New York and Tennessee in the top-10.

Dam8610
08-25-2007, 01:11 AM
Why are so many people so down on the Vikings' offense? They have a good offensive line and quite possibly one of the best 2 back sets in the NFL right now. If Tarvaris Jackson can manage to be something like Ben Roethlisberger in his rookie season, maybe not even that good, the Vikings could very well be playoff contenders with their ball control offense, great run defense, and a pass defense that should see considerable improvement with the addition of Leslie Frazier as DC.

yodabear
08-25-2007, 01:15 AM
aren't you a rams fan?

Yes, I am. I know its preseason and all, but u can't look that horrible in the 3rd preseason game. If u gotta win one preseason game, u want it to be the third cuz the third is when u play your #1 guys the most, and we got whalloped by the worst team in the league last year, litteraly, the WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. WHERE IS MY PANIC BUTTON???????

Shiver
08-25-2007, 01:18 AM
Why are so many people so down on the Vikings' offense? They have a good offensive line and quite possibly one of the best 2 back sets in the NFL right now. If Tarvaris Jackson can manage to be something like Ben Roethlisberger in his rookie season, maybe not even that good, the Vikings could very well be playoff contenders with their ball control offense, great run defense, and a pass defense that should see considerable improvement with the addition of Leslie Frazier as DC.

As I've said earlier:

He (Tavaris Jackson) is a QB who only completed 56% of his passes in D-IA, has barely any NFL experience, struggled in his brief time last year and has horrible receivers. I think that is reason enough for pessimism...

He certainly has the talent, but I am think the odds are against him. As for the defense they haven't really improved their pass rush.

BuckNaked
08-25-2007, 01:24 AM
sorry I just don't think Minnesota wins more than 3 games this year. The offense is in shambles and while the defense was good against the run last year it was dreadful against the pass and it doesnt look any better this year. Plus I don't believe in Childress at alland think he will fail. With Tarvaris Jackson starting Idont think this team can be anything better than the worst.

You can't say their ofennse is in shambles when Jackson hasn't really gotten a chance yet. If he doesn't perform well, i'll be right there with you claiming the offense is a wreck. But you can't just claim it's a mess, when if Jackson has a good year we'll have a successful season.

nobodyinparticular
08-25-2007, 01:29 AM
You can't say their ofennse is in shambles when Jackson hasn't really gotten a chance yet. If he doesn't perform well, i'll be right there with you claiming the offense is a wreck. But you can't just claim it's a mess, when if Jackson has a good year we'll have a successful season.

But since this is a prediction thread, you can predict Tarvaris Jackson to play crappy, thus making the offense as a whole look terrible.

BuckNaked
08-25-2007, 01:33 AM
But since this is a prediction thread, you can predict Tarvaris Jackson to play crappy, thus making the offense as a whole look terrible.

I assume that's a fair assessment, I'm just usually too optimistic about the Vikings season.

Dam8610
08-25-2007, 01:42 AM
As I've said earlier:



He certainly has the talent, but I am think the odds are against him. As for the defense they haven't really improved their pass rush.

He doesn't have to be even an average QB for the Vikings to have the potential to be a ~.500 team though, provided that running game and defense live up to the standards of which they're capable. If he somehow defies the odds and has a good season, the Vikings are all but a lock for the playoffs.

Crazy_Chris
08-25-2007, 04:23 AM
He certainly has the talent, but I am think the odds are against him. As for the defense they haven't really improved their pass rush.

Thats not Quite true, We get Erasmus James back tonight so we will see what kind of impact he can have. But even without him Ray Edwards has been Bringing the heat all Training camp/Preseason, as has Brian Robison when he has played. Part of the Reason Chad Pennington looked so bad last week was because of the pass rush Forcing him into bad throws.

I also don't understand where you all get #1 from us say what you want about Tarvaris Jackson but our Defense and Running games is good enough to keep us from the #1 pick.... Anyways I'd put my money on Houston with Kansas City in a close second.

Average OT LB
08-25-2007, 05:28 AM
I'm fairly surprised at how many people voted for the browns, they have a problem at quarterback, but i belive if quinn comes in you have yourself a talented team. Hey, most people didnt think anything of the saints, even after they won alot of their first few games. The browns are on their way up..
I'm also a little surprised about minnesota being third in the voting. Its not hard to duplicate what brad johnson did, manage. They added a wide out, greenway, and a top notch rb. They could win that division.. if they can beat the bears..

anyone notice how many NFC teams are there? one could argue the falcons and redskins could be added...

3rd worst: Bucs - they're offense got better by adding a quarterback with an AARP card?
2nd worst: Houston - who says shuab is any better than carr?


NO Contest! Oakland is the worst, they play in a very hard division and didnt get better, instead they brought in a rookie coach and ousted arguably the most talented WR to enter leauge.. they scored a league worst 168 points last year, (with moss) there were 7 players who equaled or surpassed that on their own.. and to top it off that bright light at the end of the tunnel they call a defense still was the worst in the division and there were only 4 teams to give up more points in the AFC.

The Unseen
08-25-2007, 05:50 AM
Well, there is in no way that the Browns defense is equal to that of the Raiders. Right now, that is a super bowl caliber defense.

meh...I wouldn't say that, but they are good, and based off of last year are better than the Brown's D.

duckseason
08-25-2007, 06:21 AM
Yeah, I think some people are seriously underestimating the Vikings ability to completely shut down their opponents running game. You combine that with what projects to be a top-tier rushing attack on the other side of the ball, and you have a solid .500 team as a result of just those two things. If they can step up the pass rush and just slightly improve the passing game, this is a legitimate playoff team.

I think they'll need to improve on their recent record against the AFC, (0-4 last year and 1-7 over the past two seasons) and facing the West this year may help that. The KC game is more than winnable especially if the Chiefs think they can solely rely on the run against Minny, like they do against others. If they don't bring a QB to the party, they'll lose big imo. Catching Oakland in the dome is huge too. So I think they have a great chance at splitting with the West. Facing the NFC East in a down year is another potential plus. Philly and Dallas should be tough, but a lot of people are doubting both the NYfG and Redskins this year. So splitting the East wouldn't be a surprise either. Their other 2 non-divisional match ups are Atlanta and Frisco. I don't know about you guys, but I can easily see the Vikes matching last years win total of 6 with the OOD games alone.

This is the type of team that's capable of beating a favorite here and there. Anytime you have such solid trench play, you'll beat a superior team or two each year just because they weren't on top of their game that day and you were stout in the middle like always. So yeah, I'm marking them down for a solid 6 out of 10 non-divisional wins this year. And then a few more against the rivals. I'm thinking anywhere from 8-8 to 10-6. But worst in the league? Is that possible when you have the best run defense in the league? Has that ever happened? Am I the only one that saw AD looking like a pro-bowler the other day? Do people really think Tarvaris is that much worse than some of the Bears QB's have been over the past few years? I actually think he looks pretty good moving around in the pocket and keeping his eyes on his reads. He looks like a leader to me. I think I'm more worried about the WR's than I am about Tarvaris at this point. But I can understand why some people would see it differently.

I think the bottom line for me regarding this team and their projected record is just the solid play up front on both sides of the ball. I reiterate it once again because I can't believe how underrated they are in this regard. There were a full dozen NFL teams who allowed twice the rushing yards per game than the Vikings did last year. And a handful of others who were hovering right at that 120 mark. Either they're underrated, or people are underestimating the impact these strengths have on the success of a team's season. You just don't lose more than 10 games with that kind of talent down there. Not unless some of the key players get seriously injured. I see Peterson as a lock for OROY barring injury. And I see no reason to believe that their run defense won't be even more dominant than last year. I'd like to hear someone explain their reasons for thinking it will deteriorate. There must be more than a few to warrant picking these guys dead last. I mean, obviously this poll is based on opinions, and everybody has a right to express theirs, but can we hear some solid logic behind the 8 votes for the Vikes? Something more than Tarvaris sucking balls? Maybe I'm missing something? Aren't there a bunch of teams with ball sucking QB's who don't hold their opponents to 2.8 yards per rush?

Wow I guess I'm bored. The negative perception of this team just fascinates me I guess. I've never really been a fan of the Vikings at all. I've always liked the Lions in that division (for lame reasons too- such as because I love actual Lions and I like the jerseys- and of course Barry Sanders) But I'm rooting for Minny this year mostly because I think they might be the most underrated team in the league at this point.

keylime_5
08-25-2007, 09:35 AM
Brady Quinn, Jamal Lewis, Eric Steinbach, Seth McKinney, Ryan Tucker, maybe LeCharles Bentley and Gary Baxter, Eric Wright, Robaire Smith, Shaun Smith, Antwan Peek, and Joe Thomas all come to the Browns this year as guys who either were not on the team last year or didn't play much/at all for them last year, yet they are the worst team? Gimme a break. No team improves that much up front and loses more games than the year before when Reuben Droughns was terrible, Charlie Frye was worse, and the O-Line took the cake for stinking. Browns might pick top 10, but they aren't the worst team. Oakland added like 1 or 2 new players and a 31 year old coach yet they are better? In Minnesota they face better Detroit and Green Bay teams in their division and have the worst starting QB in the NFL. Based on what we've seen of the Chiefs QBs so far they should probably be at least on the poll (though I seriously doubt they drop off that much).

Xiomera
08-25-2007, 09:42 AM
I am a little surprised that Detroit doesn't have a single vote yet. They wouldn't make my bottom 5, and they are improved over last year, but there always seems to be a lot of Lions haters on NFLDC. Maybe they all died out with the banning of scorchin. ha ha


I voted Oakland (again).

princefielder28
08-25-2007, 09:49 AM
I was wishing Tennessee or KC were choices

eaglesalltheway
08-25-2007, 10:17 AM
It was though for me, between the Raiders, Texans, and Browns. But the worst two for me are the Texans and the Raiders, witht he Raiders taking the dubious position of worst team in the NFL for the second year in a row. It really comes down to the O-line, and these two teams have some of the worst O-lines, so that is why I was debating between those two.

Modano
08-25-2007, 10:19 AM
I voted for the Buccanneers. Look at the last 4 teams from last season, It's pretty hard to be the worst team two years in a row, so I took out the Raiders. The Lions are improved, I hope the Browns will be that bad but I think they're better than the Bucs. Garcia could be un upgrade, but he was garbage in Cleveland and Detroit and I don't see him in a better situation in Tampa.

LionSmack
08-25-2007, 10:51 AM
All I know is the Browns looked horrible against the Lions right up until the Lions ran their 4th-string defense out there and started calling Chinese Fire Drill Prevent on every single play.

And since I don't expect the Lions to be any better than mediocre, that must mean the Browns are bad.

Also I concur with everyone who said that KC should be on this list. I would have voted for them.

Buffalo is also a possibility, and Atlanta as others said.

Edit: OH and Tennessee is a possibility too. Losing Pac-Man, losing T. Henry, unimpressive WR's, and VY could very well hit a sophomore (or Madden) jinx, that stuff could all add up pretty quickly.

Smooth Criminal
08-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Browns will not be the worst team. They won't be good but they have an improving defense and added alot of talent to the o line. They will win a prolly 5 to 7 games and pick between 6 and 10.

BrownsTown
08-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Browns will not be the worst team. They won't be good but they have an improving defense and added alot of talent to the o line. They will win a prolly 5 to 7 games and pick between 6 and 10.

Yea, I think the Browns are bad, but the certainly aren't the worst team in the league.

etk
08-25-2007, 03:09 PM
Brady Quinn, Jamal Lewis, Eric Steinbach, Seth McKinney, Ryan Tucker, maybe LeCharles Bentley and Gary Baxter, Eric Wright, Robaire Smith, Shaun Smith, Antwan Peek, and Joe Thomas all come to the Browns this year as guys who either were not on the team last year or didn't play much/at all for them last year, yet they are the worst team? Gimme a break. No team improves that much up front and loses more games than the year before when Reuben Droughns was terrible, Charlie Frye was worse, and the O-Line took the cake for stinking. Browns might pick top 10, but they aren't the worst team. Oakland added like 1 or 2 new players and a 31 year old coach yet they are better? In Minnesota they face better Detroit and Green Bay teams in their division and have the worst starting QB in the NFL. Based on what we've seen of the Chiefs QBs so far they should probably be at least on the poll (though I seriously doubt they drop off that much).

Quality not quantity my friend. I also think the Browns have one of the worst coaching staffs in the league. They mat not finish last but they certainly will be close. Tennessee and KC would be my other choices.

BrownsTown
08-25-2007, 03:11 PM
Quality not quantity my friend. I also think the Browns have one of the worst coaching staffs in the league. They mat not finish last but they certainly will be close. Tennessee and KC would be my other choices.

They have a crappy head coach, but besides that Todd Grantham is damn good and Chud's new. Romeo will probably be gone by the bye week anyway.

keylime_5
08-25-2007, 03:32 PM
Quality not quantity my friend. I also think the Browns have one of the worst coaching staffs in the league. They mat not finish last but they certainly will be close. Tennessee and KC would be my other choices.

They only won 4 games last year and as everyone knows most NFL games are close and a few plays literally make the difference between 4-12 and 7-9. Look at the Browns weekly starters last year compared to the team and depth they have this year and it's plain that they'll be improved...albeit a bad team, but not the worst team.

And I'm not sure we have the worst coaching staff at all, but Romeo is one of the worst head coaches so far.

Average OT LB
08-25-2007, 04:33 PM
Quality not quantity my friend. I also think the Browns have one of the worst coaching staffs in the league. They mat not finish last but they certainly will be close. Tennessee and KC would be my other choices.

Cleveland Tennessee and KC? 2 of those 3 arent going to even be last in the division. Oakland is by far the worst team. Houston has not improved. Cleveland is at least talented, and on both sides of the ball.

TimD
08-25-2007, 04:37 PM
kansas city should be on this poll

Eaglez.Fan
08-25-2007, 04:39 PM
Tennessee Titans.

M.O.T.H.
08-25-2007, 04:41 PM
kansas city should be on this poll

I agree. I'm not a fan for this season. Like I said before, I'm picking Oakland to finish ahead of them...KC may be in the cellar this year. I think the Titans should be up there as well...major questions at RB and WR...no Pacman and a QB that didnt really impress through the air w/ better targets last year.

McBain
08-25-2007, 04:52 PM
where are the falcons?

Smooth Criminal
08-25-2007, 05:35 PM
The Browns schdule looks absolutley brutal to start with. They play Pittsburgh, @Cincinatti, @Oakland, Baltimore, and @New England the first 5 games. That is a brutal start and if they don't beat Oakland they could easily start 0-5. That would spark Quinn getting put in and who knows what he would be able to do.

BrownsTown
08-25-2007, 05:37 PM
The Browns schdule looks absolutley brutal to start with. They play Pittsburgh, @Cincinatti, @Oakland, Baltimore, and @New England the first 5 games. That is a brutal start and if they don't beat Oakland they could easily start 0-5. That would spark Quinn getting put in and who knows what he would be able to do.

Better than Derek frickin' Anderson.

Smooth Criminal
08-25-2007, 05:50 PM
Anyone is better than who they have there now.

BrownsTown
08-25-2007, 05:53 PM
Anyone is better than who they have there now.

I'm hoping he gets some reps against the first teamers tonight...but Denver might not be the best. You're going from Detroit's 3rd/4th stringers to the best group of cornerbacks in the NFL, might wanna wait until next week.

Smooth Criminal
08-25-2007, 05:59 PM
I wouldn't want to put Quinn against Bailey and Bly yet. I don't care how good he looked vs. Detroits 4th string prevent defense he isn't ready for any starting duo let aloe the best in the league.

PoopSandwich
08-25-2007, 06:22 PM
Atlanta or Kansas City will make the most drastic change, I think they will both be top 10 picks, it's too hard to pick the worst team, but I'll go with Atlanta.

BrownsTown
08-25-2007, 06:36 PM
I wouldn't want to put Quinn against Bailey and Bly yet. I don't care how good he looked vs. Detroits 4th string prevent defense he isn't ready for any starting duo let aloe the best in the league.

It's like when you put in rookie QBs to start the season. You know they're gonna suck, but it's the experience that counts.

PoopSandwich
08-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Browns add - Eric Steinbach, Joe Thomas, Seth McKinney, all starters on the o-line

Jamal Lewis - I know people are popular in bashing him, but he has looked amazing in the preseason in camps and in the games, the line should provid him a legit chance for him to return to 4+ yards per carry.

Eric Wright - Starting corner, has looked really good.

Brady Quinn - Nothing needs to be said, because everyone has an opinion on this guy and nothing I say will persuade anyone lol.

Defensive line starters in Shaun Smith/Robaire Smith (Our line still sucks.)

And finally, the person I have been pimping since getting him thanks to Mr. Stiller, Atwan Peek thankfully is getting a chance to start that McGinest and Stewart are hurt, and is a crazy pass rusher, I like him alot.

Now to the schedule.

Browns non-divisional games are...

New England - auto loss
Miami - winnable
New York Jets - winnable (was last year, the don't really scare me)
Buffalo - winnable
St Louis - winnable
Seattle - winnable
Houston - winnable
Arizona - winnable
San Fran - winnable
Oakland - winnable

Thats 9 games I will go into without the mentality of "Let's not get blown out"

I'm not saying we win everyone of them, but lets say we win 4 of those games, and 1 or 2 divisional games, 5-11 or 6-10 aren't bad enough to be the #1 pick in the draft.

I made my case to why the Browns won't be picking first, but I understand still why people would have them there.

draftguru151
08-25-2007, 06:48 PM
I think the Browns will be much closer to the 16th pick than the 1st.

SubNoize
08-25-2007, 06:52 PM
Brady Quinn, Jamal Lewis, Eric Steinbach, Seth McKinney, Ryan Tucker, maybe LeCharles Bentley and Gary Baxter, Eric Wright, Robaire Smith, Shaun Smith, Antwan Peek, and Joe Thomas all come to the Browns this year as guys who either were not on the team last year or didn't play much/at all for them last year, yet they are the worst team?

The only person mentioned on that list worth a crap at this point is Steinbach, why do Brown fans insist on mentioning every insignificant roster addition? That defense isn't close to Oak. in any way shape or form and to say we allowed those points is idiotic if you actually watched those games. Some of those scores were off INT or Fumbles returned for TDs and it's hard for even the best defense to hold off points when the opposition is consistently starting in the redzone off offensive blunders. The Browns are a frickin joke, their coach is deciding his QB battle with a quarter for christ's sake. You will not beat anybody in the AFC EASTor NFC WEST.

PoopSandwich
08-25-2007, 06:53 PM
The only person mentioned on that list worth a crap at this point is Steinbach, why do Brown fans insist on mentioning every insignificant roster addition? That defense isn't close to Oak. in any way shape or form and to say we allowed those points is idiotic if you actually watched those games. Some of those scores were off INT or Fumbles returned for TDs and it's hard for even the best defense to hold off points when the opposition is consistently starting in the redzone off offensive blunders. The Browns are a frickin joke, their coach is deciding his QB battle with a quarter for christ's sake. You will not beat anybody in the AFC EASTor NFC WEST.

And you insist on mentioning no one because you didn't add anyone of significance besides your first overall pick who hasn't signed.

BrownsTown
08-25-2007, 06:54 PM
The only person mentioned on that list worth a crap at this point is Steinbach, why do Brown fans insist on mentioning every insignificant roster addition? That defense isn't close to Oak. in any way shape or form and to say we allowed those points is idiotic if you actually watched those games. Some of those scores were off INT or Fumbles returned for TDs and it's hard for even the best defense to hold off points when the opposition is consistently starting in the redzone off offensive blunders. The Browns are a frickin joke, their coach is deciding his QB battle with a quarter for christ's sake. You will not beat anybody in the AFC EASTor NFC WEST.

Ok, yea, the Browns have no chance against Houston, Miami, Buffalo, St. Louis, Arizona, and San Fran. Cause you know, they were so good last year, the Browns don't have a chance.

nobodyinparticular
08-25-2007, 07:13 PM
Ok, the Cards and Lions look like they will be out of the next poll, KC and Atlanta will be added. Any other teams who deserve to be here in everyone's opinion?

CC.SD
08-25-2007, 07:20 PM
their coach is deciding his QB battle with a quarter for christ's sake.

This is the best argument for the Browns I've heard so far. I voted Dolphins; I just don't like what they've been up to at all, they look really shaky.

etk
08-25-2007, 07:41 PM
Ok, the Cards and Lions look like they will be out of the next poll, KC and Atlanta will be added. Any other teams who deserve to be here in everyone's opinion?

I think that's a perfect swap.

Average OT LB
08-25-2007, 07:54 PM
Ok, the Cards and Lions look like they will be out of the next poll, KC and Atlanta will be added. Any other teams who deserve to be here in everyone's opinion?

nobody in particular

yo123
08-25-2007, 07:57 PM
nobody in particular



Ive heard a couple of Tennessees

nobodyinparticular
08-25-2007, 08:49 PM
Ive heard a couple of Tennessees

Right. Good call.

neko4
08-25-2007, 08:50 PM
we're finally moving on?
took quite awhile it seemed

Shiver
08-25-2007, 11:04 PM
To anyone who thinks the Texans will have a top-10 pick: Matt Schaub is the real deal. I'm convinced and I wish it weren't true. Not to mention Ahman Green, while past his prime, cannot possibly be worse than what they had last year. That by default makes the Texans better than they were last year and I haven't even mentioned that Mario Williams and Demeco Ryans should improve with another year under their belts.

nfrillman
08-26-2007, 12:59 AM
Ok, yea, the Browns have no chance against Houston, Miami, Buffalo, St. Louis, Arizona, and San Fran. Cause you know, they were so good last year, the Browns don't have a chance.

Okay, I think the Browns have can beat Houston, Miami, Buffalo, Arizona, and San Fran. I am definitely not chalking up St. Louis beating Cleveland, because any given Sunday, but if the Rams lose to the Browns I will have to seriously consider bashing my skull open with a sledge hammer. No offense to you or the Browns, but if the Rams are a playoff team they beat the Browns handily, and the playoffs are the Rams goal. Boy I hope I don't have to bash my skull open.

neko4
08-26-2007, 01:13 AM
San Fran shouldnt be in this discussion

Average OT LB
08-26-2007, 01:18 AM
To anyone who thinks the Texans will have a top-10 pick: Matt Schaub is the real deal. I'm convinced and I wish it weren't true. Not to mention Ahman Green, while past his prime, cannot possibly be worse than what they had last year. That by default makes the Texans better than they were last year and I haven't even mentioned that Mario Williams and Demeco Ryans should improve with another year under their belts.

what does the 'real deal' mean? does that mean that he isnt a 0, hes a sub 20 td qb, or super star. I dont think hes bad, but in my opinion id have a hard time seeing him being so much better than a mcnair pennington or alex smith

duckseason
08-26-2007, 01:19 AM
Okay, I think the Browns have can beat Houston, Miami, Buffalo, Arizona, and San Fran. I am definitely not chalking up St. Louis beating Cleveland, because any given Sunday, but if the Rams lose to the Browns I will have to seriously consider bashing my skull open with a sledge hammer. No offense to you or the Browns, but if the Rams are a playoff team they beat the Browns handily, and the playoffs are the Rams goal. Boy I hope I don't have to bash my skull open.

Nah, playoff teams lose to teams like the Browns all the time. Take last year for example. Both the Jets and Chiefs lost to the Browns, yet made the playoffs in the extremely tough AFC. Remember, it's not the teams you lose to that determines how good your team is, it's the teams you beat. What happens if you guys head into the Browns game coming off a 4 game winning streak against Dallas, Arizona, Baltimore and Seattle, but lose to the Browns? Are you a playoff caliber team?

BrownsTown
08-26-2007, 01:36 AM
Okay, I think the Browns have can beat Houston, Miami, Buffalo, Arizona, and San Fran. I am definitely not chalking up St. Louis beating Cleveland, because any given Sunday, but if the Rams lose to the Browns I will have to seriously consider bashing my skull open with a sledge hammer. No offense to you or the Browns, but if the Rams are a playoff team they beat the Browns handily, and the playoffs are the Rams goal. Boy I hope I don't have to bash my skull open.

I gave examples of teams the Browns face that didn't make the playoffs last year. Nothing personal to any team.

nobodyinparticular
08-26-2007, 02:11 AM
Ok, I'm calling Oakland as the winner of this. Cleveland is the runner up and since we're a little pressed for time, I'm giving them the next spot. Atlanta, KC and Tennessee will be added to the next poll.

BrownsTown
08-26-2007, 10:08 AM
Ok, I'm calling Oakland as the winner of this. Cleveland is the runner up and since we're a little pressed for time, I'm giving them the next spot. Atlanta, KC and Tennessee will be added to the next poll.

I think that if Atlanta was in the same poll, they'd win the 2nd spot over Cleveland. But oh well, don't matter.

PoopSandwich
08-26-2007, 10:34 AM
Browns won't be picking in the top 10, I already gave my reasons and I think we will win 6-8 games, and I don't think that will be in the top 10 this year.

duckseason
08-26-2007, 11:46 AM
Browns won't be picking in the top 10, I already gave my reasons and I think we will win 6-8 games, and I don't think that will be in the top 10 this year.

You're right, the Browns won't be picking in the top ten. The Cowboys will.
Btw, there were 2 teams that finished 6-10 last year. They picked 9th and 10th. I don't see how you can insist so vehemently that the Browns won't be one of the 10 worst teams in the league, and then in the same breath say they'll likely be in the bottom dozen or so, as though there is a difference. You can't pinpoint win totals in this league. Only estimate. Often times, it's only a few plays out of 2 thousand that keep a 5-11 team from being 8-8. And that goes both ways. If you can admit that the Browns will likely win 8 games or less, you're effectively admitting that you think it's highly possible that they could be among the bottom third of the league standings. You're contradicting yourself.

etk
08-26-2007, 12:33 PM
To anyone who thinks the Texans will have a top-10 pick: Matt Schaub is the real deal. I'm convinced and I wish it weren't true. Not to mention Ahman Green, while past his prime, cannot possibly be worse than what they had last year. That by default makes the Texans better than they were last year and I haven't even mentioned that Mario Williams and Demeco Ryans should improve with another year under their belts.

I agree on Schaub, but who does he have to throw to other than AJ and...Owen Daniels. Jacoby Jones? They will probably pick in the 8-12 range and finish 3rd in their division. They can't defend the pass and their offensive line hasn't improved much.

nobodyinparticular
08-26-2007, 02:28 PM
Browns won't be picking in the top 10, I already gave my reasons and I think we will win 6-8 games, and I don't think that will be in the top 10 this year.

And I don't think the Raiders will be the worst team in the league this year, but oh well. Move on.