PDA

View Full Version : Random Week 2 Thoughts


yourfavestoner
09-18-2007, 12:19 AM
Not nearly as insightful and organized as Shiver's, but I always have to give my $.02 worth.

- David Carr sucks. Thank god that Matt Schaub is proving what most AFC South fans (i.e. the only people who actually watched David Carr throughout his career) already knew.
- The Eagles cannot expect to throw the ball 40+ times and win. McNabb is clearly isn't recovered. His footwork is all messed up, he can't plant and drive, and it's forcing him to throw flatfooted and messing his accuracy up.
- Jacksonville messed with a good thing. Last season the strength of the team was in the running game. Then they let Kyle Brady walk and replaced Mo Williams with Tony Pashos. The result: the running game has been abysmal. Pashos is definitely one of those players that looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane. Hopefully they can pick things up when Brad Meester returns.
- Steve Smith is a god
- Mario Williams>Reggie Bush
- Tom Coughlin will do his best coaching job this season, but will get fired. The Giant defense is pathetic beyond belief.
- Players not plays. I can't stress that enough after watching a defensive "genius" (Marvin Lewis) put out a pathetic defensive product on the field for four consecutive seasons.
- Jaws was a great addition to MNF. It's crazy to actually hear a commentator actually talk about the strategy that's going on on the field, instead of just the commentators make excuses for their favorite players or going off on random tangents that have nothing to do with the game.
- Kyle Boller>Steve McNair. I said it before the Ravens even made the trade for McNair. He simply isn't the same player that he used to be and he WILL NOT challenge defenses down the field like Boller does. Boller was mishandled his first few seasons and was Billick's scapegoat. The trade for McNair was a desperation move by Billick who was entering the last season of his contract last season. Sure, he might be a better game manager, but he's not the kind of player that's going to take the team on his back and win games anymore, which is what you need in the postseason in the AFC.
- Kellen Clemens looked very impressive in his debut against an elite Ravens defense. I'm interested to see if he starts next week, and how he'll respond to a team that has gameplans against him.
- Kansas City will have the first pick of the draft.
- Minnesota just needs to give AD the ball on every play.

I think that's it. Who knows though.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-18-2007, 12:24 AM
I was on the Kyle Boller breakout bandwagon last year and it was a very empty ship. Then it crashed and burned after the McNair trade, but McNair is more or less finished. It'll be interesting if he ever stays healthy whether the Ravens decide to bench him

San Diego Chicken
09-18-2007, 12:24 AM
Where is the Clemens love coming from? He's getting way more credit for playing OK against the Ravens than Pennington is for playing very well against the Patriots. I know Pennington isn't a QB that scares people, at least not anymore... but Clemens is? I don't see it.

bearsfan_51
09-18-2007, 12:26 AM
I don't think Kansas City is that bad. Their offense was waaaaay too conservative against us and they were clearly playing not to lose. That said, there are a lot of teams out there with a lot less things going for them (Atlanta, Buffalo) that I find it hard to believe the Chiefs will be the very worst. LJ will grind out 4-6 wins for the team, and that should be enough to avoid the top spot.

Plus..you've got to remember that while there are some organizations that will tank, Herm always "PLAY(S) TO WIN THE GAME!!!.......HELLO!?!?!!?!"

LonghornsLegend
09-18-2007, 12:57 AM
is KC really THAT bad? they should win 7-8 games i think, hell LJ will win at least 3 for them...


and i agree about clemens, yes pennington plays great as well, but clemens has a cannon pennington doesnt have, and i think he makes defenses work just as hard, if mccareins could catch everyone would really be on clemens bandwagon had he beat the ravens


oh and leon washington>reggie bush

Shiver
09-18-2007, 01:05 AM
YFS is much more direct and dare I say blunt than I am.

McBain
09-18-2007, 02:28 AM
YFS is much more direct and dare I say blunt than I am.

if wordplay were an Olympic event and you were on tv... i would have cheered for you just now.

diabsoule
09-18-2007, 02:31 AM
I agree with damn near everything you wrote. I especially like the addition of Jaws to the MNF crew. Still my dream team for MNF remains be seen and the Dream Team is Mike Tirico, Mike Greenburg, and Mike Golic. Mike Cubed.

diabsoule
09-18-2007, 02:33 AM
YFS is much more direct and dare I say blunt than I am.

While that may be true, the art of semantics is a fine art to master yet once you master it or at least earn an apprenticeship in it, you will find that it is very hard to argue with you because you will prove to those that argue that you have not written in absolutes.

Dam8610
09-18-2007, 03:16 AM
- Jaws was a great addition to MNF. It's crazy to actually hear a commentator actually talk about the strategy that's going on on the field, instead of just the commentators make excuses for their favorite players or going off on random tangents that have nothing to do with the game.

Yeah, isn't it amazing to get a little insight into the chess match going on within the game rather than hearing about why Joe Theismann thinks Chad Johnson is just the bestest guy ever?

- Kansas City will have the first pick of the draft.

If they do, Atlanta will give them a very hard fought battle for it.

Caddy
09-18-2007, 03:43 AM
Barrett Ruud is becoming a force for Tampa manning the 'Mike' position vacated by Shelton Quarles. He is currently leading the NFL in tackles with 18, 2 ahead of Lanc Briggs, Antonio Pierce and Lofa Tatupu all of which are good company.

BlindSite
09-18-2007, 03:53 AM
I'll admit we got schooled on Sunday but Mario Williams was a no show during that game.

BigDawg819
09-18-2007, 09:16 AM
Tony Pashos is not the typical run blocker you would think he'd be. He got that contract off of his play last year and the Ravens' strength on the Offensive Line was pass blocking and not run blocking. Many Ravens' fans were not disappointed in seeing him walk when the contract numbers were released.


The Eagles once again have not given McNabb enough weapons to work with and the drafting of Kolb has forced him into coming back to soon and will ultimately cost the Eagles this season. Reggie Brown and Kevin Curtis are #2 WR's at best and Brian Westbrook can't do it all by himself. With injuries mounting on the defensive side, this year could get ugly very fast but it may work out since this team was going to have to rebuild and get younger in a season or 2 anyway. Plus all the off the field distractions Andy Reid had this offseason with his sons really hurt this franchise.



I said it in another thread and I'll say it here, Marvin Lewis was a product of the Baltimore defensive scheme. He hasn't done the necessary things in Cincinatti that made him successful in Baltimore. He was the architect of that vaunted 2000 Ravens' Defense, and while that can't really be replicated the blueprint should have been. Marvin has not gone out a gotten the dynamic young linebackers needed for that blueprint, instead he rolled the dice with character issues like Odell Thurman and Ahmad Brooks and he got burned. That secondary is a nightmare and the entire defense is lacking that high quality veteran presence. Not to mention Marvin has not surrounded himself with quality defensive coaches like he was in Baltimore. He'll likely once again get a pass on this season, but his seat is definitely heating up and fast.



You're preaching to the choir about Kyle Boller good sir. When Coach and Ozzie went about acquiring McNair, they must have just kept on watching tape from the Ravens/Titans battles of the old AFC Central and not the recent tapes where he's an walking injury waiting to happen with no arm who constantly checks down on plays. McNair may get the start this Sunday but if he doesn't produce I can see him getting pulled for "aggravating" his groin and Kyle will be in there.



Kellen Clemens did have a good showing, albeit when the Ravens' defense became lax and went in to that dreaded prevent defense. I swear the only thing that defense does is attempt to prevent you from winning. Regardless Clemens stood up under pressure and constant hits and was carving up chunks of yards against that secondary and should have tied the game if not for drops. Chad Pennington is a class act and deserves better but then again so did Drew Bledsoe in New England. Sitting a 0-2, the Jets need a spark to shake things up and Clemens is the guy to do that. Chad could use a couple of weeks of rest but this may be his last season as the Jets starter.


Thats my take on yourfavoritestoners thoughts, he had some excellent points and I just elaborated on them.

draftguru151
09-18-2007, 10:05 AM
Barrett Ruud is becoming a force for Tampa manning the 'Mike' position vacated by Shelton Quarles. He is currently leading the NFL in tackles with 18, 2 ahead of Lanc Briggs, Antonio Pierce and Lofa Tatupu all of which are good company.

NFL.com is funky, its says he has 18 on the stat leaders page, but then 24 on his page. It's not solo, Ruud has 19. ESPN has it right, Ruud has 24, Zach Thomas has 23.

ShutDwn
09-18-2007, 10:09 AM
I'll admit we got schooled on Sunday but Mario Williams was a no show during that game.

He wasn't a no sho, but he wasn't standout either. Okoye was their defensive guy this week getting two sacks, though he beat rookie Kalil for both of them.

But yes, Steve Smith is god.

Wyndham
09-18-2007, 11:15 AM
The Chiefs will not have the #1 pick. I'd be surprised if they have a top-10 pick.

I realize it's week two and, as always, your average NFL fan doesn't watch the game and overreacts after reading the stats page, but the Chiefs are better than more than a couple teams in the NFL.

If you can do three things in the NFL -- run the football, play defense and limit turnovers -- you'll win consistently (Steelers are a solid example). If you can do two of the three things (all but prevent turnovers), you'll win some games but also have "off" games (Bears and Ravens would be good examples). If you can't do at least two of those things consistently, you won't win (a good example being the Lions or Browns). The Chiefs, on the other hand, can run the football, but they haven't done so yet - though I expect that to happen very soon. They can play defense. What they haven't proven able to do is prevent turnovers. However, given that they play defense, when they start running the football with Larry Johnson, they'll start winning some games.

They will win games this year. They'll also have the "off" games -- they've had two already -- I mention when LJ doesn't get it going and they turn it over. So regardless of how good their defense plays (like on Sunday in Chicago), the ball game is lost.

The other thing to mention is Arrowhead. People get so caught up in hype that they don't think logically. Here's logic: the Chiefs have played about as bad as they will all season, ON the road, away from Arrowhead - one game also coming against the NFC Champions. Now, they go home (which history tells us they play MUCH better at), face a much lighter challenge in Minnesota and have a chance to right the ship. They will win this Sunday. Book it. Go to your favorite online sportsbook and bet against the Vikings and the points (3) they're being given.

Make no mistake about what I say: the Chiefs aren't headed to the playoffs or even 8 or 9 wins. But they will find a way to be middle of the pack, probably 6 or 7 wins. It's what the team has been constructed to do by its moron of a GM and puppet of a HC. That's why Damon "game manager" Huard is still the quarterback.

I wish the Chiefs could have the #1 pick. I really would prefer they win just two or three games instead of six or seven. They NEED a high pick which they haven't had for a few years. They could use it to take the potential franchise left tackle or quarterback, and in the following rounds add another wide receiver, some offensive line and cornerback help, and re-tool for next year.

But it's just not going to happen. Unfortunately.

JK17
09-18-2007, 11:36 AM
The Chiefs will not have the #1 pick. I'd be surprised if they have a top-10 pick.

I realize it's week two and, as always, your average NFL fan doesn't watch the game and overreacts after reading the stats page, but the Chiefs are better than more than a couple teams in the NFL.

They may not have the #1 pick, there are plenty of bad teams. But they will have a top 10 pick until they prove they can do anything out there.

If you can do three things in the NFL -- run the football, play defense and limit turnovers -- you'll win consistently (Steelers are a solid example). If you can do two of the three things (all but prevent turnovers), you'll win some games but also have "off" games (Bears and Ravens would be good examples).

First of all, prove that those are the only neccesary things to win consistently. Those are some of the most importnat things, but there are plenty of other factors. Secondly, you just included two playoff teams, as your examples. There is no basis to assume that doing two out of those three things will net you to get 13 win seasons. Both of those teams had dominant, not just good defenses, great play on Special Teams, and offesnes that produced well at many points of the season last year.

If you can't do at least two of those things consistently, you won't win (a good example being the Lions or Browns). The Chiefs, on the other hand, can run the football, but they haven't done so yet - though I expect that to happen very soon. They can play defense. What they haven't proven able to do is prevent turnovers. However, given that they play defense, when they start running the football with Larry Johnson, they'll start winning some games.

That's a whole hell of a lot of speculation. The chiefs have done none of those things yet. Oh, but I'm sure that they will just learn overnight how to control turnovers, and how to play defense. I can understand the running aspect, even though they haven't even been able to do that yet, but what will turn around their defense...they played a poor offense and an average offense, they haven't shown they can play defense...

They will win games this year. They'll also have the "off" games -- they've had two already -- I mention when LJ doesn't get it going and they turn it over. So regardless of how good their defense plays (like on Sunday in Chicago), the ball game is lost.

Having two games played bad already has on effect on the rest of the season. If anything it means they will get into a losing habit. It's not like they have an allotted amount of bad games, and theyre just using them up already.

The other thing to mention is Arrowhead. People get so caught up in hype that they don't think logically. Here's logic: the Chiefs have played about as bad as they will all season, ON the road, away from Arrowhead - one game also coming against the NFC Champions. Now, they go home (which history tells us they play MUCH better at), face a much lighter challenge in Minnesota and have a chance to right the ship. They will win this Sunday. Book it. Go to your favorite online sportsbook and bet against the Vikings and the points (3) they're being given.

First of all, thats all your opinion that theyve played as bad as they will all season. So that's not logic. Every team plays better at home, and the Chiefs do statistcaily play great at Arrowhead. Big deal, thats not going to result in as big of a differnce as you'd imagine, on a team that will struggle, a lot.

Make no mistake about what I say: the Chiefs aren't headed to the playoffs or even 8 or 9 wins. But they will find a way to be middle of the pack, probably 6 or 7 wins. It's what the team has been constructed to do by its moron of a GM and puppet of a HC. That's why Damon "game manager" Huard is still the quarterback.

So you'll draw the line at them getting 8 wins as unrealistic, but they'll probably get 7 wins? What's the big difference there? I'd be very suprised to see KC win 6 or 7 of its next 14 games, they aren't a .500 team like that would make them in the last 14.

Shiver
09-18-2007, 11:42 AM
I am tired of the cliche 'run and stop the run and you'll win.' Everyone realizes that the Minnesota Vikings only won six games last year with the best run defense and a very good rushing attack right? The Chiefs are not as good defensively, nor do they have half the caliber of the Vikings O-Line. I think they win between four or five. That won't draw the #1 overall pick, but still lands them in the top-5.

SubNoize
09-18-2007, 11:56 AM
The Chiefs will not have the #1 pick. I'd be surprised if they have a top-10 pick.

If you can't do at least two of those things consistently, you won't win (a good example being the Lions or Browns). The Chiefs, on the other hand, can run the football, but they haven't done so yet - though I expect that to happen very soon.

I like how you list 2 teams that have won more games than the chiefs, good examples there buddy.

JK17
09-18-2007, 01:32 PM
Also just to what I said before, you say you'd be shocked to see them with a top ten pick, and then you say you expect about 6-7 wins. 6 wins puts you in the top ten, or right next to it.

SFbear
09-18-2007, 01:39 PM
I am tired of the cliche 'run and stop the run and you'll win.' Everyone realizes that the Minnesota Vikings only won six games last year with the best run defense and a very good rushing attack right? The Chiefs are not as good defensively, nor do they have half the caliber of the Vikings O-Line. I think they win between four or five. That won't draw the #1 overall pick, but still lands them in the top-5.

I think the underlying assumption with "stopping the run" is that you also can stop the big pass play which IIRC the VIkings had a problem with.

I think the "conventional wisdom" of "run and stop the run" is partly based on a logical fallacy. Teams that are winning run the ball and teams that are far behind abandon the run. Just because the box score of winning teams shows more often than not 100+ yards, people assume that teams won because of the yardage rather than obtaining the yardage because of them winning. The analysts point and declare "See!! They didn't establish the run. Thats why they lost."

I think however there is some truth to the idea that a running game helps establish a rhythm to an offense and demoralizes a defense late in the game. I think most mediocre teams in the league shoot themselves in the foot and that a conservative, low turnover risk running game and stout defense can go a long way to racking up wins against mediocre opponents. I'd attribute that moreso to turnover ratio. Against truly elite opponents u probably will need the balanced attack unless you can catch them on a bad day. Fortunately elite teams are of short supply at the moment

Shiver
09-18-2007, 01:43 PM
The problem is the Chiefs do not have the O-Line or defense to accomplish using Herm Edwards' strategy of mediocrity.

bigbluedefense
09-18-2007, 02:03 PM
I agree 100% with the Coughlin statement. So far, I really can't kill Coughlin for our losses. Our team was well prepared coming in, the team rallies around him, plays hard, doesn't quit, he's done a good job.

But our defense sucks ass. And theres really nothing he can do about it. He doesn't have a clue about defense, and trusts his DC with the operation. Our players in the back 7 of our defense just sucks. Not his fault.

And thats saying alot from me, as ive been a very vocal critic of Coughlin in the past. I kind of feel bad for him this year. So far at least.

Green Bay Scat
09-18-2007, 02:08 PM
I agree 100% with the Coughlin statement. So far, I really can't kill Coughlin for our losses. Our team was well prepared coming in, the team rallies around him, plays hard, doesn't quit, he's done a good job.

But our defense sucks ass. And theres really nothing he can do about it. He doesn't have a clue about defense, and trusts his DC with the operation. Our players in the back 7 of our defense just sucks. Not his fault.

And thats saying alot from me, as ive been a very vocal critic of Coughlin in the past. I kind of feel bad for him this year. So far at least.

do giant fans really like Coughlin? he seems kinda like a dick

bigbluedefense
09-18-2007, 02:19 PM
do giant fans really like Coughlin? he seems kinda like a dick

No, for the most part we dislike him. He is, in an awkward way, growing on me though. I blamed him for alot of stuff the past 2 years, but Ive realized that some of the blame I gave him was undeserving. I was very critical of the offense, and it turns out that it was more of Huffnagel than Coughlin.

From a HC standpoint, he does motivate his guys, and they never quit on him. So I like that. But of course, theres plenty I don't like about him either. His adjustments, his handling of Eli, his stubbornness, his biased discipline, etc.

But I have given him more blame than he deserves. I'll admit that.

Caddy
09-18-2007, 04:57 PM
NFL.com is funky, its says he has 18 on the stat leaders page, but then 24 on his page. It's not solo, Ruud has 19. ESPN has it right, Ruud has 24, Zach Thomas has 23.

I was just going off those stat's because it was easier although it still proves the same point.

Ravens1991
09-18-2007, 05:46 PM
I still think McNair is better then Boller.


He is our offensive leader and has shown more clutchness then Boller, now he has a RB that can get yards after a dump pass and another year in the system and if his groin gets better. I think he is present but Boller is the future.

wogitalia
09-20-2007, 06:56 AM
Now, they go home (which history tells us they play MUCH better at), face a much lighter challenge in Minnesota and have a chance to right the ship. They will win this Sunday. Book it. Go to your favorite online sportsbook and bet against the Vikings and the points (3) they're being given.

Not sure about that. Chiefs cant throw the ball. If you cant pass, you can't score against the Vikes. You will not win the game running against us. You can throw or score on defense. I like our chances of running on you better and I think that decides the game. We will be able to run, you wont. I don't expect either team to really do anything passing the ball.

Wyndham
09-20-2007, 10:54 AM
First of all, prove that those are the only neccesary things to win consistently. Those are some of the most importnat things, but there are plenty of other factors. Secondly, you just included two playoff teams, as your examples. There is no basis to assume that doing two out of those three things will net you to get 13 win seasons. Both of those teams had dominant, not just good defenses, great play on Special Teams, and offesnes that produced well at many points of the season last year.

If you can do two of the three things I listed, the general outcome will be positive. To argue otherwise is just arguing for the sake of it. Good luck finding teams that accomplish that failing more often than succeeding.


That's a whole hell of a lot of speculation. The chiefs have done none of those things yet. Oh, but I'm sure that they will just learn overnight how to control turnovers, and how to play defense. I can understand the running aspect, even though they haven't even been able to do that yet, but what will turn around their defense...they played a poor offense and an average offense, they haven't shown they can play defense...

Last year they were ranked above average in multiple categories, such as scoring defense, and very highly in a couple others, like redzone defense.

This year, they're giving up 13 points per game and are top 10 in yards allowed among many other categories.

They can play defense. Anyone who watches them play can see that.


First of all, thats all your opinion that theyve played as bad as they will all season. So that's not logic. Every team plays better at home, and the Chiefs do statistcaily play great at Arrowhead. Big deal, thats not going to result in as big of a differnce as you'd imagine, on a team that will struggle, a lot.


Well, no sh*t. You're a certified genius, aren't you? I'm here on message board posting my opinion, much like it's your opinion that there won't be "as big of a differnce as you'd imagine" when KC plays at home.

History tells us that there is a significant difference. If you like, and if I can be bothered to waste any more time with this non-sensical argument, I'll help you out and show you the numbers to prove it. Or you could look them up.

KC will be a lot better at Arrowhead. There's no way around that, but good luck trying to argue, on any kind of a factual basis, that they won't.


So you'll draw the line at them getting 8 wins as unrealistic, but they'll probably get 7 wins? What's the big difference there? I'd be very suprised to see KC win 6 or 7 of its next 14 games, they aren't a .500 team like that would make them in the last 14.

You like semantics, don't you? Do you really have nothing else to do?

KC was 0-2 last year. Its defense gave up more points. Not including garbage time, its offense scored less points. They had also played a home game. If they didn't look worse than they do this year, there certainly wasn't a lot in it.

They finished 9-5 and made the playoffs.

Will the same happen? No.

Is it impossible that they'll make .500 after looking unimpressive in the first two weeks? Don't kid yourself; of course is it. 8 out of 14 at home and there are plenty of winnable games.

How'd San Francisco do last year -- a team certainly no worse than Minnesota is this year -- coming into Arrowhead in week 3, against a team that looked awful prior to that?

What's the record of teams against KC when their QBs are starting for the first time at Arrowhead? What about their QB rating?

I like how you list 2 teams that have won more games than the chiefs, good examples there buddy.

If you think I'm basing an entire strategical philosophy on TWO games, you're sorely mistaken.

Good examples? They're great examples. If you've watched the NFL for more than a couple of weeks, you'd know why.

I am tired of the cliche 'run and stop the run and you'll win.' Everyone realizes that the Minnesota Vikings only won six games last year with the best run defense and a very good rushing attack right? The Chiefs are not as good defensively, nor do they have half the caliber of the Vikings O-Line. I think they win between four or five. That won't draw the #1 overall pick, but still lands them in the top-5.

The Vikings also couldn't stop the pass, gave up a lot of yardage through the air and, consequently, plenty of points to the opposing offense. They also turned the ball over. And their rushing attack, while solid, was hardly "very good".

The Vikings won 6 football games because they didn't prevent turnovers and both their defense and rush offense was spotty.

How many games did the Chargers win last year - playing defense, running the football and preventing turnovers?

Of course there's more to a general, dumbed down philosophy, but you will not find many teams that accomplish the things I mentioned that consistently fail.

Not sure about that. Chiefs cant throw the ball. If you cant pass, you can't score against the Vikes. You will not win the game running against us. You can throw or score on defense. I like our chances of running on you better and I think that decides the game. We will be able to run, you wont. I don't expect either team to really do anything passing the ball.

The Chiefs give up 3.6 yards per carry and haven't had their best defensive lineman (and overall defensive player) play a snap. Last week, Adrian Peterson didn't even crack that against the Lions. I wouldn't be so confident but we'll see how well the Vikings do running the football. It wouldn't shock me to see Peterson do well but I'd say there's a good chance KC slows him down.

The Chiefs won't be able to run? That's about as logical as stating that the Vikings won't, giving current performance this season, so we'll again have to see.

I don't really see either team doing all that much in the passing game, either.

In this game I agree with the Vegas line and see the Chiefs edging it out.

What's funny is that I wish I was wrong about the Chiefs. I wish I didn't know what I was talking about and that they'd tank this game among many others this season so that they can finally get the high pick they need to add more talent to the trenches, particularly on the offensive line. But they consistently prove me right. I said the same thing I'm saying now. I knew they'd bounce back, win games they have no business being (just like 14-2 San Diego... at home) and lose games they probably should win (just like Cleveland... on the road) and earn that mediocre pick.

The good thing is, I like Dwayne Bowe a lot. But with that said, an Amobi Okoye or Levi Brown would look pretty darn good in a Chiefs uniform.

Vikes99ej
09-20-2007, 12:07 PM
- Minnesota just needs to give AD the ball on every play.

It's seems obvious enough, but we still try to pass whenever we need to the least.