PDA

View Full Version : The NFC West, Once Laughing Stock of the NFL...


Malaka
04-19-2009, 03:45 PM
Is now on on its way in my opinion to becoming one of the better division in the league, maybe not this year, but in two years I fully believe this division will be on of the strongest in the NFL, when for so long now we have been calling it the weakest. Here's my logic behind all this...

http://www.ssur.org/experiments/AZCardinalsIdeas/Images/ArizonaCardinals_LTV.jpg
9-7 NFC West Division Champs Super Bowl XLIII Loser

The Arizona Cardinals won their first playoff game sine 1998, and played in their first ever Super Bowl last year. This young team has prospered under the guidance of head coach Ken Whisenhunt, and the play of a stellar offense led by Kurt Warner under center. For awhile now, the Cardinals were viewed as a breakout team but were consistently 8-8, 7-9, and missed the playoffs, before the season this year was no different, but 2008 was the greatest season the Cardinals have ever experienced in all their years as an NFL franchise.

The Cardinals have one of the best offenses in the league even without a consistent run game, and below average play from their offensive line, thanks mostly to Pro Bowl QB Kurt Warner, and All-Pro receivers Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, both arguably the best receivers in the NFL, also complimented by up and comer Steve Breaston. Behind the 38 year old Kurt Warner rests a top ten pick, QB Matt Leinart, still waiting for his chance to shine, but Kurt Warner is a proven vet and has been an MVP, and Super Bowl winner back with the Rams, unfortunately for Leinart, he will have to keep on waiting. All the star offensive players, other than Warner are under 30 years old, Fitzgerald, Boldin, Breaston, and even 1st year RB Tim Hightower who did play well in beginning of the season but who's play dropped off later on. This offense will only continue to improve as the running game and pass protection become more consistent, which the Cardinals look to do in the upcoming draft.

The Cardinals defense was not an excellent defense, but in their defense they were are a young team with a lot of potential. They run a 4-3/3-4 hybrid system, which allows Darnell Dockett to prosper in his DT/DE position, where he might not get amazing sacks, but if you watch a Cardinals game he is a force on every play, always pressuring the QB, and getting deep past the line of scrimmage. There also is Calais Campbell waiting to take over at DE, who should get his chance to start this year, he looked great every time he got the chance in 08'. The defense is led by Karlos Dansby, one of the best and most versatile LBs in the league, he is what makes this defense goes, without him this would be one of the worse units in the league, along with long time Card, Adrian Wilson they lead this defense. Once the Cardinals acquire an elite pass rusher, this defense will be an excellent one, although, Travis LaBoy, Bertrand Berry, and Chike Okeafor are decent pass rushers, the Cardinals need a difference maker. The secondary is also very intriguing with Adrian Wilson, a hard-hitting SS leading the bunch. Antrel Rolle though disappointing as a CB, is dangerous anytime he has the ball in his hands, I think another year at FS, and he can be a great playmaker in the secondary. Most importantly comes rookie Domonique Rodgers-Chromartie, who has the potential to be one of the best CBs in the league, with everything you ever wanted in a CB, size, speed, hands, he is physical, etc.

The core of this young team is under 30
Fitzgerald Age: 25
Boldin Age: 28
Dockett Age: 27
DRC Age: 23
Breaston Age: 25
Campbell Age: 23
Adrian Wilson Age: 29

and I expect this team to only improve and become one of the elite teams in the NFL, if Ken Whisenhunt does the right things to make it so.

Prediction: 10-6 NFC West Champs, win the first round, out in the 2nd.

http://www.mapkernow.com/nfl-football-helmets/san-francisco-49ers-authentic-pro-line-full-size-riddell-helmet.jpg
7-9 led by new coach Mike Singletary

The 49ers may be a better team than some people think. I by no means think Shaun Hill is a franchise QB, and I fully believe if Mark Sanchez is there he should be drafted, but Hill is solid enough to lead this team to a playoff berth. This is a young team, led by a fiery new coach and I see big changes in this teams future, and I think it will be for the good.

Like the Cardinals the core of this team is very young. They have some All-Pro caliber players on this roster like Frank Gore and Patrick Willis. The offense is very capable of becoming a very good unit in the NFL. Shaun Hill is a capable QB, not a great one, but he is capable of winning games. At RB, if Frank Gore gets the blocking he is one of the best RBs in the game, as long as they don't wear him out, by overusing him. The offensive line looks to be improving and LT Joe Staley looks like he can be a franchise Tackle for this team. Led by vet Isaac Bruce, this receiving corp. has potential to be a decent one, with Josh Morgan showing boatloads of potential, and Arnaz Battle has always been a solid #2/slot man. Lastly if anyone can put Vernon Davis on the right path to reaching his potential it's Mike Singletary, as seen by his mid-game explosion on Davis during the season.

On the defensive side of the ball, Mike Nolan brought in the 3-4, though Singletary has more experience with a 4-3, Singletary is more of a motivational guy than an Xs and Os coach. Patrick Willis is not human, he is a machine, and the boogie man checks his bed every night to make sure Willis isn't there. Willis is an animal and going into his 3rd year, he is easily one of the best LBs in the game, he is the face of that defense and a franchise player. Other than Willis, there are some other solid pieces on that defense, such as Justin Smith, Ray McDonald, Nate Clements, and Mark Roman, these players are key pieces to the defense, the emergence of Ray McDonald only helps make Willis's job easier, by giving him a very good 3-4 front, with Smith and McDonald in front of him.

Core players
Patrick Willis Age: 24
Frank Gore Age: 25
Justin Smith Age: 29
Ray McDonald Age: 24
Nate Clements Age: 29
Joe Staley Age: 24

Once the 49ers get their receivers to reach their potential, get a franchise QB, and just add a decent pass rusher or two I fully expect them to become one of the better teams in the NFL, with a draft like Mark Sanchez in the first, and Connor Barwin in 2nd it is very possible.

Prediction: 8-8 Miss the playoffs by a game

http://www.glassworxnw.com/images/seattle-seahawks.jpg
4-12 an injury riddled season, but yet still a very talented team.

The Seahawks have annually been the winners of the NFC West, and last year I thought no different. Unfortunately for Seattle, injuries plagued their season, a weak offense became weaker with injuries to QB Matt Hasselback, Deion Branch, Walter Jones and Nate Burleson, and those were just some offensive injuries. The team crashed and burned, with all ready a very weak offensive unit becoming one of worse off in the league, and a talented defense losing players, things just went from bad to worse and by the 5th week the blowout to the Giants, really symbolized that the season was over for the Seahawks.

However with such a disappointing season last year, the Seahawks are back in my opinion ready to contend for the division title yet again. Walter Jones and Matt Hasselback will both returning at full health, and if Deion Branch can ever stay healthy he is a deadly weapon for Hasselback. Not only is the Seahawks offense up and running, they acquired pro bowl receiver, TJ Houshmanzadeh to be the #1 receiver in their offense. For once I am actually liking how the Seahawks offense is looking. If the offensive line can play decent this will be a very well functioning offensive unit. With a proven QB in Hasselback, a decent back in Julius Jones, an emerging TE in John Carlson, and a pretty decent WR corp led by TJ Houshyamomma.

On the defensive side of the ball the Seahawks were always very talented even though they were terribly disappointing last year, I expect a bounce back this year. Julia Peterson is gone, but Lofa Tatupu and Leroy Hill still make one of better linebacker corps. in the league, no matter who is playing SAM. The defensive line, added Cory Redding in the Julian Peterson trade, and Redding will now have some help on the line where he can prosper in his normal UT role, unlike what he did with the Lions last year, along with 10+ sack guy Patrick Kerney, and some young guys with potential to be very good DEs like Lawrence Jackson and Baraka Atkins. The only part of this defense I am not liking is the secondary, in 07' Marcus Trufant looked to be one of the best CBs in the league, but unfortunately his play dropped off signifigantly, as well as other CBs on the roster like Kelly Jennings, and Jordan Babineaux. Deon Grant is a solid safety but next to him Brian Russell is nothing more than a special teamer, if the secondary can improve its play a bit, the defense will be back to its former self.

The Seahawks have a very good core of players who have been to probowls before or deserved one.
Matt Hasselback Age: 33
TJ Houshmandzadeh Age: 31
Patrick Kerney Age: 32
Lofa Tatupu Age: 26
Leroy Hill Age: 26
Marcus Trufant Age: 28

Although and older core of stars, and producers, they have just as much potential as the other teams in this division because they have some rising stars that I did not mention like John Carlson and Lawrence Jackson. I think this team is best top ten pick team poised for a playoff run. With Eugene Monroe or Jason Smith at 4. the offensive line will be much improved as will the team.

Prediction: 9-7 barely miss playoffs.

http://media.ky3.com/images/saint+louis+rams.png
2-14 the cellar of the West again, however they signed Steve Spagnuolo who I fully believe can turn them around.

For the past two years the Rams have finished their season 2-14 and in the cellar of the NFC West, and although I believe they'll finish last in the West again in 09' I think they will be much improved under the guidance of new coach Steve Spagnuolo. The Rams are not a team devoid of talent, they do have talent in certain spots of their roster.

The Rams are a hard team to really analyze, but one thing is for certain, the offensive line needs a serious makeover. Orlando Pace has been cut, and was injury riddled and on the wrong side of 30 anyway, and former 1st round pick Alex Barron is a bust, the Rams are in a good spot at 2. in the draft, where they are guaranteed one of the top 2 OTs in the draft, now they just need to pick the right one, the potential filled Jason Smith, or the more pro ready Eugene Monroe, to be their franchise LT, and keep a once Pro Bowl caliber QB off his back. The Rams also need to seek a future replacement for Bulger who I never thought too highly of anyway. All the offensive pieces that made the greatest show on turf are now officially all gone, with the release of Torry Holt and Orlando Pace, with Kurt Warner in Arizona, and Isaac Bruce in San Fran. The hope of the offense falls on one of the best RBs in the league Steven Jackson, but he can only do so much with a very limited passing game, and a terrible offensive line, and I've also always been intrigued by what Brian Leonard can do when he used the right way.

Defensively the Rams seem to have a better immediate future, especially with the new scheme Spagnuolo is brining to St. Louis. Chris Long at DE, and Adam Carriker at DT, are pretty good duo to build upon, and the front seven is in IMO the most important thing to build on in all of football. There are some other solid players like Will Witherspoon, Leonard Little, Chris Draft, and James Butler, to go along with that defense, but the real potential star is in the secondary, and his name is Ron Bartell, he really played great last season, and definitely has the potential to a top corner. Last, but not least the Rams also have one of the best kickers in the game today in Josh Brown, he has a great leg, and excellent accuracy.

Stars and people I believe can develop into excellent players.

Steven Jackson Age: 25
Josh Brown Age: 30
Brian Leonard Age: 25
Chris Long Age: 24
Adam Carriker Age:24
Ron Bartell Age: 27

Although St. Louis is in the worst shape out of all the NFC West teams, I believe, that they will improve in 09', and just like the other NFC West potentially be a force to be reckoned with, within the next few years.

Now the NFC West IMO, is the laughing stock of the league, I truly believe in a few years they can be one of the strongest division in the NFL. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated, whether you agree or disagree. Depending on the response to this one I may or may not make another thread analyzing another division, like NFC East, AFC North, or another division with an interesting story line.

Prediction: 5-11 bottom of the NFC West

TitleTown088
04-19-2009, 03:47 PM
Not much has changed. NFC/ AFC west won't be good divisions next year.

Xonraider
04-19-2009, 03:51 PM
Not much has changed. NFC/ AFC west won't be good divisions next year.

maybe not now, but both are taking steps into the right direction (we'll have to see about the broncos), or so it seems.

Malaka
04-19-2009, 03:51 PM
Not much has changed. NFC/ AFC west won't be good divisions next year.

But players develop, I feel the 49ers and the Cardinals will be very competitive teams next year. I also think the Seahawks will bounce back, if they can manage to stay healthy.

PoopSandwich
04-19-2009, 03:52 PM
Sorry but I disagree, I just don't see it becoming that good of a division next year, it will probably be back up to where it was in like 2 years.

Malaka
04-19-2009, 03:54 PM
I am not saying the division will be great next year, in what I just wrote I mentioned in a year or two I believe it can be a very good division, IMO the AFC West is officially the worst.

BaLLiN
04-19-2009, 06:00 PM
i could see why, Seattle always used to get an easy ride to the playoffs, St. Louis before them did the same, and 49ers before them. Arizona finally showed they could compete.

Shahin
04-19-2009, 06:05 PM
not yet, but all 4 teams are taking steps in the direction of respectability. excellent write-up though.

Brent
04-19-2009, 06:09 PM
where's Toonster in all this? in the IRC the other night he was talking very positively about the Niners and it made me happy haha

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 06:29 PM
I'm not sure why for the past few years people have wanted to believe the Niners are a better team than they are. Must be the old mystique.

Malaka
04-19-2009, 06:33 PM
I'm not sure why for the past few years people have wanted to believe the Niners are a better team than they are. Must be the old mystique.

You don't believe they're a team on the rise? I mean surely there not going in the wrong direction right now...

GB12
04-19-2009, 06:39 PM
The NFC East, NFC North, and NFC South will all be better. So that makes it the worst division in the conference.

The AFC East, AFC North, and AFC South will be better. They have a chance at beatting out the AFC West and not being the absolute worst division in the NFL. If being the second worst division in the league makes them not a laughing stock in your mind then yes you are correct.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 06:49 PM
You don't believe they're a team on the rise? I mean surely there not going in the wrong direction right now...

I think the Niners are one of the worst run organizations in the NFL. I've believed that for years. I believed that a few years ago when they signed Nate Clements and drafted Vernon Davis, I believed it when I said Mike Nolan would be fired and everyone said I was crazy, I believe it now when I say they have HUGE issues at very important positions, and Mike Singletary is being massively overrated as both a talent evaluator and a head coach.

At some point I'm sure all the high picks will help turn them around, but it's a pretty lousy organization.

derza222
04-19-2009, 06:53 PM
The three top 10 picks in the draft this year shouldn't hurt them any ;-)

It's a division that has a lot of young talent that has been able to get some experience, but mostly because the teams are still pretty bad. I think the Rams are a few years away even though Spags could do some nice things there, the 49ers I think get overrated a little as BF51 said although they have the potential to be a solid team, and we'll see what the Seahawks can do if they stay healthy. I don't see the division taking a major step forward next season though.

Malaka
04-19-2009, 06:54 PM
The NFC East, NFC North, and NFC South will all be better. So that makes it the worst division in the conference.

The AFC East, AFC North, and AFC South will be better. They have a chance at beatting out the AFC West and not being the absolute worst division in the NFL. If being the second worst division in the league makes them not a laughing stock in your mind then yes you are correct.

I clearly wrote that I don't think they'll change much next year... I said in a year or two they will be one of the better divisions in the league. I never said this upcoming season they will no longer be in the bottom two, I still believe that there are many divisions better than the NFC West, but I see it on the rise, and no longer as bad as it once was.

GB12
04-19-2009, 06:58 PM
I clearly wrote that I don't think they'll change much next year... I said in a year or two they will be one of the better divisions in the league. I never said this upcoming season they will no longer be in the bottom two, I still believe that there are many divisions better than the NFC West, but I see it on the rise, and no longer as bad as it once was.
You have three teams .500 or better. That is a huge change.

Malaka
04-19-2009, 07:00 PM
You have three teams .500 or better. That is a huge change.

There were two teams 500. or better in that division last year. I feel the Seahawks will improve, if they are not hampered by injuries to at least 500. I only have one of those 3 teams making the playoffs.

GB12
04-19-2009, 07:08 PM
There were two teams 500. or better in that division last year. I feel the Seahawks will improve, if they are not hampered by injuries to at least 500. I only have one of those 3 teams making the playoffs.
No, there was only one.

And you have the division getting 32 wins compared to 22 last year. That's a pretty significant change.

Malaka
04-19-2009, 07:13 PM
No, there was only one.

And you have the division getting 32 wins compared to 22 last year. That's a pretty significant change.

Sorry 49ers were 7-9 my bad, but still quite close

I only have one team improving significantly, the rise in wins is drastic, but only because the two bottom teams improved very much so, while the top 2 pretty much got a little better.

My predictions are not what matters, no one can predict what can happen in an NFL season, I thought the Falcons were locks to have the #1 overall pick, that didn't work out like I planned, what I am thinking right now is it seems, to me the Cardinals, Rams, Seahawks and 49ers are all on the right track right now, and a few years down the road that division won't be as pathetic as it has been.

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 07:31 PM
I wouldn't even put NFC west in the top half of divisions. The only divisions you might be better than are the NFC North, maybe the NFC south (cards beat panthers and falcolns, but 2 playoff teams in a division is a strong case against NFC west), and maybe the AFC west (similar division in terms of being able to win with an 8-8 record haha).


Your argument is heavily based on each team drafting well and getting good starters but we all know there are plenty of losers every draft year and most draft picks don't contribute right away. You could do this, "each team is on the right track" for anybody: when a team needs an OT and they draft one, you can say, "look they addressed their need, great draft!" but in reality that player might not pan out so it's silly to evaluate drafts that day. Everyone is trying to get better, even the lions. No team is making moves that they think are gonna make the team worse off. Obviously teams make bad decisions in hindsight, but at the time people don't intentionally make bad decisions with 100% certainty unless ur a complete ****** a la Matt Millen


Sorry, still think it's the laughing stock of NFL.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 07:36 PM
I wouldn't even put NFC west in the top half of divisions. The only divisions you might be better than are the NFC North, maybe the NFC south (cards beat panthers and falcolns, but 2 playoff teams in a division is a strong case against NFC west), and maybe the AFC west (similar division in terms of being able to win with an 8-8 record haha).

The NFC North and South would stomp the **** out of the AFC West.

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 07:42 PM
The NFC North and South would stomp the **** out of the AFC West.

I wasn't making a relative statement about the NFC North, NFC South, and AFC West--just that they are the only divisions close to the shittiness of the NFC west.

But now that we're talking about it, I think NFC South is way better than NFC North and AFC West. But NFC North and AFC west is closer than you would think, I'd take the Chiefs over the Lions and the Raiders were a couple close games away from being as good as the Packers. SD has an elite roster, more elite than the Vikings, and Denver and Chicago are not that far off although the Cutler trade will shake things up. Depends on how good Denver's 1st rounders turn out. Nonetheless, I think it's way closer than NFC South vs AFC West/NFC North

Each team in the NFC south has made the playoffs at least once the last 2years

Malaka
04-19-2009, 07:50 PM
I think the NFC West is better than the AFC West...

Cardinals and Chargers are closer than you think...

49ers and Broncos, with Cutler Broncos all the way but now... no

Seahawks and Raiders, Seahawks they had a really bad injury riddled year, I think they'll be much better this year.

Rams and Chiefs, I'll give it to the Chiefs.

GB12
04-19-2009, 07:51 PM
the Raiders were a couple close games away from being as good as the Packers.
The Raiders are no where close to the Packers.

And that is not a homer statement.

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 07:54 PM
The Raiders are no where close to the Packers.

And that is not a homer statement.
I would take the Packers over the Raiders 6 times out of 10, but 60/40 is pretty close is all i'm saying. "on any given sunday" would be very appropriate for this matchup

Raiders' defense is statistically better and I would argue their offensive players have way higher of a ceiling.

Aaron rodgers may be better than Jamarcus now, but you can't argue against Jamarcus' potential. And Michael Bush > Ryan Grant , and DMC hasn't even touched his potential.

You have better receivers though, but you're probably going defense in round 1 and raiders will probably get maclin/crabtree, which would make it closer.

abaddon41_80
04-19-2009, 07:58 PM
I don't know why anyone would think it weird for the 49ers to go 8-8 in 2009. They went 7-9 last year with the Mike Nolan/J.T. O'Sullivan for the first half of the season. That alone proves that the rest of the team is better than some believe.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 08:07 PM
I wasn't making a relative statement about the NFC North, NFC South, and AFC West--just that they are the only divisions close to the shittiness of the NFC west.

But now that we're talking about it, I think NFC South is way better than NFC North and AFC West. But NFC North and AFC west is closer than you would think, I'd take the Chiefs over the Lions and the Raiders were a couple close games away from being as good as the Packers. SD has an elite roster, more elite than the Vikings, and Denver and Chicago are not that far off although the Cutler trade will shake things up. Depends on how good Denver's 1st rounders turn out. Nonetheless, I think it's way closer than NFC South vs AFC West/NFC North

Each team in the NFC south has made the playoffs at least once the last 2years

The Bears would beat the Broncos by 3 touchdowns. The Broncos could be one of the 2-3 worst teams in the NFL next year. Ditto the Packers over the Raiders.

fenikz
04-19-2009, 08:08 PM
Ya we are only the best team in the NFC(can't argue that until next year)

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 08:16 PM
The Bears would beat the Broncos by 3 touchdowns. The Broncos could be one of the 2-3 worst teams in the NFL next year. Ditto the Packers over the Raiders.

The bears will be lucky to score 3 TDs against the broncos. Their best receiver is a TE, I don't care if they got Jay "most over hyped QB" Cutler, the Broncos are a talented team with a lot of draft picks and the Bears have one pick in the first 100. At the very worst, the Broncos lose by a TD to the Bears.

And SD could beat every team in the NFC North 8 times out of 10. Packers were 7-9 last year, don't think that's very convincing and their defense got worse and it was already too old. I'm not saying they're worse than the raiders but it's close.

As long as the Vikings have Brad Childress and Tarvaris Jackson at the helm, they're going NOWHERE fast. The AFC west and NFC NOrth both SUCK.

And come on, your division has the LIONS, GG no RE.

GB12
04-19-2009, 08:30 PM
The bears will be lucky to score 3 TDs against the broncos. Their best receiver is a TE, I don't care if they got Jay "most over hyped QB" Cutler, the Broncos are a talented team with a lot of draft picks and the Bears have one pick in the first 100. At the very worst, the Broncos lose by a TD to the Bears. As much as I hate the Bears they would destroy the Broncos if they played next year. So would the Packers and Vikings.

And SD could beat every team in the NFC North 8 times out of 10. Really? Because they lost 2 out of 4 in 2007 and have only gotten worse since then.

Packers were 7-9 last year, don't think that's very convincing and their defense got worse and it was already too old. I'm not saying they're worse than the raiders but it's close.We were 6-10 not 7-9, but it's really not close. The Packers would win easily over Oakland. And your previous post about that was very wrong.
Raiders' defense is statistically betterActually statistically the Packers defense is better. They were better in points allowed, yards allowed, and run defense. The Raiders were better in pass defense by 1.6 yards per game.
and I would argue their offensive players have way higher of a ceiling. Well you'd be wrong. Also unless all their players are going to all of a sudden magically reach their potential next year that doesn't mean ****. The Packers already have a top 10 QB and top 10 WR on the roster. The Raiders don't have players that are capable of doing either.

Aaron rodgers may be better than Jamarcus now, but you can't argue against Jamarcus' potential.I absolutely can argue against Russell's potential. I doubt Russell ever has a season as good as Rodgers had last year. Also, week 1 Rodgers will be 25, Russell will be 24. Rodgers might not have hit his potential yet either. And if Russell ever does reach the level of Rodgers it looks like it's not going to be for a few years judging on how he's progressing so far.

And Michael Bush > Ryan Grant How the **** do you figure that? I know it's the popular thing to hate on Grant, but seriously?


As long as the Vikings have Brad Childress and Tarvaris Jackson at the helm, they're going NOWHERE fast. The AFC west and NFC NOrth both SUCK.
Even so they are easily better than 3/4ths of the AFC West and probably better than San Diego too.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 08:36 PM
The bears will be lucky to score 3 TDs against the broncos.

Huh, that's funny because we averaged 23.4 points per game last year with Kyle Orton as our QB and John St. Clair as our LT.

Better luck next time champ.

PalmerToCJ
04-19-2009, 08:43 PM
The NFC West will still be one of the worst divisions in football.

It's also hard to project two years ahead in the NFL (much less one). Yes, talent does develop but talent also fails to develop. NFC West teams will continue to get top 10-15 picks so eventually I would hope they will emerge.

Ness
04-19-2009, 08:46 PM
I think the Niners are one of the worst run organizations in the NFL. I've believed that for years. I believed that a few years ago when they signed Nate Clements and drafted Vernon Davis, I believed it when I said Mike Nolan would be fired and everyone said I was crazy, I believe it now when I say they have HUGE issues at very important positions, and Mike Singletary is being massively overrated as both a talent evaluator and a head coach.

At some point I'm sure all the high picks will help turn them around, but it's a pretty lousy organization.

How many years? Because badly run organizations don't earn five Lombardi trophies or consistent trips to the post season. If you meant since circa 2000 you may have a point. But before that no.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 09:08 PM
How many years? Because badly run organizations don't earn five Lombardi trophies or consistent trips to the post season. If you meant since circa 2000 you may have a point. But before that no.
Now honestly, what did you think I meant?

John York took over the 49'ers in 1999. Since then they have been had 8 losing seasons out of 10 and have been through 4 head coaches. That's a trend.

Considering the people that built the Superbowl teams are either long gone or dead, I'd say it's pretty irrelevant at this point. But I do think it speaks to the expectations among some that every year is going to be the year the Niners come back.

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 09:09 PM
Huh, that's funny because we averaged 23.4 points per game last year with Kyle Orton as our QB and John St. Clair as our LT.

Better luck next time champ.

Bad statistic to give because 23.4 points doesn't mean 3 TD, and it also doesn't mean 3 offesnive TD (only time bears can win is when defense/special teams score all their points).

Give me the average offensive TD statistic of the bears last year, and then we'll talk.

Orlando Pace at 33 might not be that much of an improvement and all those redzone interceptions cutler throws as well as the bears failure to reload on offensive players beside culter (and one pick in the 1st 100 isn't promising) might make it tough for you to get 3 offensive TDs per game.

We'll see

BlindSite
04-19-2009, 09:31 PM
NFC North is still a better division as is the east and south, not necessarily a "laughing stock" but still pretty poor.

GB12
04-19-2009, 09:35 PM
Bad statistic to give because 23.4 points doesn't mean 3 TD, and it also doesn't mean 3 offesnive TD (only time bears can win is when defense/special teams score all their points).

Give me the average offensive TD statistic of the bears last year, and then we'll talk.

1. You never said offensive TDs

2. Obviously if they averaged 23.4 they are capable of scoring 3 TDs. That's just an average too. Against a ****** Denver defense and now with a decent QB they could easily score three TDs.

God damn, if you're going to argue don't suck at it.

eaglesalltheway
04-19-2009, 09:44 PM
1. You never said offensive TDs

2. Obviously if they averaged 23.4 they are capable of scoring 3 TDs. That's just an average too. Against a ****** Denver defense and now with a decent QB they could easily score three TDs.

God damn, if you're going to argue don't suck at it.

Haha, lol, too funny.

Only here will you find a Packer fan defneding the Bears!!!!ZOMGZ

LookItsAlDavis
04-19-2009, 09:59 PM
It seems like it is a trend for divisions to rise and fall throughout the years...it wasn't too long ago that the NFC South blew, and look at them last year. The same can be said about the AFC West, although it was the earlier part of the decade when they had multiple contenders. I'm sure both the AFC and NFC West will find their ways back to respectability, but there's no way of telling how long it will take.


All of this talk about "my team can beat your team" by throwing out statistics from last year is stupid. You need to look at how one team's personnel matches up against the other. The Bears would most likely kill the Broncos at this point, because they have a capable QB and a good running game, along with an above average defense. The Broncos have none of those. I don't like saying this, but the Packers could probably show most of the AFC West the business, only facing resistance from the Chargers. I say this because San Diego is the only team with enough of a pass rush to get to Rodgers, and their offense is much better than Green Bay's defense.

fenikz
04-19-2009, 10:03 PM
I'm sure both the AFC and NFC West will find their ways back to respectability, but there's no way of telling how long it will take.

we were in the ******* superbowl

LookItsAlDavis
04-19-2009, 10:04 PM
we were in the ******* superbowl

I didn't say Cardinals...I said NFC West. Your team was good last year, but the rest of your division sucks ass, if you can't already tell.

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 10:11 PM
1. You never said offensive TDs

2. Obviously if they averaged 23.4 they are capable of scoring 3 TDs. That's just an average too. Against a ****** Denver defense and now with a decent QB they could easily score three TDs.

God damn, if you're going to argue don't suck at it.

Not really, if you average less than 24 points in a game odds are against a team scoring, on average, 3 TD.

Especially one with the redzone skills of the bears and their proclivity to kick field goals.

The most likely scoring distribution is probably 2 TD, 2 FG. And once again, that doesn't discriminate between types of touchdowns (offensive, defensive, special teams).

Why so angry? Oh I know why... you're a packers fan.

fenikz
04-19-2009, 10:23 PM
I didn't say Cardinals...I said NFC West. Your team was good last year, but the rest of your division sucks ass, if you can't already tell.

Cardinals > NFC
Cardinals = NFC West
NFC West > NFC

eaglesalltheway
04-19-2009, 10:26 PM
Cardinals > NFC
Cardinals = NFC West
NFC West > NFC

Judging by the 6-0 record, not so much, lol

Edit: apparently the equals sign just gets wider when you bold it... Bolding the entire line...

wogitalia
04-19-2009, 10:27 PM
Not really, if you average less than 24 points in a game, odds are heavily against a team scoring, on average, 3 TD as the only way to get 23 points with 3 TD is with a safety.

Of course scoring 23 a game implies that a team has had 5 drives that got them into a scoring position, which is pretty damn solid, another reason that Orton is underrated. When you consider they had no redzone target last year(they still have none but there is still hope) that is pretty solid. It is not entirely unreasonable to think that a stronger armed QB and the further development of their young WRs and RBs could lead to maybe one more TD, which is 27 a game, which is good and they also have a solid defense.

Aaron rodgers may be better than Jamarcus now, but you can't argue against Jamarcus' potential.

Cant argue the potential his arm strength provides. Can certainly argue the apparent lack of intelligence, clear lack of work ethic and the questionable accuracy. I didn't like him before the draft for all those reasons and he has done nothing to clear those problems I had. He may yet become a good player but as yet he has shown nothing to suggest he has more potential than Rodgers, who has flashed Franchise QB potential.

cdf_2108
04-19-2009, 10:27 PM
Cardinals > NFC
Cardinals = NFC West
NFC West > NFC

that's a pretty weak argument given that divisional strength requires a high level of competition amongst all teams

when the patriots were running the afc east like it was their job, i would've never said AFC east > AFC, just Patriots > AFC

eaglesalltheway
04-19-2009, 10:28 PM
Not really, if you average less than 24 points in a game odds are against a team scoring, on average, 3 TD.

Especially one with the redzone skills of the bears and their proclivity to kick field goals.

The most likely scoring distribution is probably 2 TD, 2 FG. And once again, that doesn't discriminate between types of touchdowns (offensive, defensive, special teams).

Why so angry? Oh I know why... you're a packers fan.

Adn that was before the major upgrade at the msot vital position in Football. That, and when you factor in the Broncos lack of defense (may as well only have 8 guys out there) the Bears should be more than fine. 3 TDs is expected, if not more.

TitleTown088
04-19-2009, 10:29 PM
Not only are the majority of NFC and AFC west teams inept, so are many of their fans. :)

bearsfan_51
04-19-2009, 10:39 PM
When you consider they had no redzone target last year(they still have none but there is still hope) that is pretty solid.
I know the stats might not back it up, but Greg Olson is one of the best redzone tight ends in the NFL.
He's 6-5, has a huge reach, and probably the best vertical of any tight end in the NFL this side of Vernon Davis or Antonio Gates (Gates doesn't strike me as much of a leaper, but he does play basketball)

Ward
04-19-2009, 10:41 PM
I know the stats might not back it up, but Greg Olson is one of the best redzone tight ends in the NFL.
He's 6-5, has a huge reach, and probably the best vertical of any tight end in the NFL this side of Vernon Davis or Antonio Gates (Gates doesn't strike me as much of a leaper, but he does play basketball)

I think after this season we'll be able to see Bennett in that group as well. Potential NBA prospect at one point, and hands are improving.

Ness
04-20-2009, 02:14 AM
Now honestly, what did you think I meant?

John York took over the 49'ers in 1999. Since then they have been had 8 losing seasons out of 10 and have been through 4 head coaches. That's a trend.

Considering the people that built the Superbowl teams are either long gone or dead, I'd say it's pretty irrelevant at this point. But I do think it speaks to the expectations among some that every year is going to be the year the Niners come back.

I didn't know what you meant which is why I inquired to what you actually did mean. The phrase "for years" is ambiguous.

Regardless of the recent downfall of the franchise, it's still not enough for me to wish for current success now for past decades of consistent losing. The legacy of the 49ers is still intact...for now at least. If they were to lose consistently for the next twenty years or so, then it would be quite daunting.

bearsfan_51
04-20-2009, 01:18 PM
I didn't know what you meant which is why I inquired to what you actually did mean. The phrase "for years" is ambiguous.

Regardless of the recent downfall of the franchise, it's still not enough for me to wish for current success now for past decades of consistent losing. The legacy of the 49ers is still intact...for now at least. If they were to lose consistently for the next twenty years or so, then it would be quite daunting.

It's not an issue of legacy. Historically the Niners are unquestionably a storied franchise.

It's a question of operational efficiency, and since the ownership/structure change the Niners have been a bad franchise.