PDA

View Full Version : How do you see the AFC West turning out?


KCStud
05-24-2009, 04:08 AM
Chargers will probably win it, but I think the Chiefs could challenge them for the division. Maybe that's just the homer in me.

Will the Broncos fall? Will the Chiefs or Raiders rise? Does anybody have a chance to overthrow the Chargers?

UKfan
05-24-2009, 04:21 AM
Chargers division to lose no doubt. Then, well who knows with the other 3 really, I'm still not totally sold on Cassel for KC, Denver's switching to the 3-4 and have a new QB, and the Raiders, well, who knows...

Shane P. Hallam
05-24-2009, 09:37 AM
I do think Denver falls. I think the Chiefs improve, but perhaps only slightly (though on paper, they don't look bad at all, I could see them surprising a bit). The Raiders are a wild card. The defense looks pretty solid outside of the D-Line. I think McFadden blows up a bit, but my expectations will always be tempered for them.

Rob S
05-24-2009, 09:51 AM
I think the Chargers have it. Denver should take a pretty steep fall imo, while I think the Cheifs get a bit better, but still not good enough to make a run at the playoffs (I'll say 8-8). And the Raiders, well, they are the Raiders. I will never predict giving them over 6 wins until Al Davis is gone.

Iamcanadian
05-24-2009, 10:04 AM
The Chargers are only limited by their HC who simply isn't a winner no matter how much talent you give him.
Oakland and KC should battle it out for 2nd place but 8-8 looks about tops for those 2 teams although both could really explode in the 2010 season as both appear to be on the rise.
Denver, I see nothing but a disaster in the making. Not only are they far less talented than last year, they gave away their possible top 5 or top 10 pick for practically nothing. We don't even know if their new HC can get the team to respond to him after a disastrous off season never mind the other question about whether he can be a successful HC or not. So far BB coordinators haven't had that much success as HC's even in college football.
I think they are very lucky to win 4 games even in the weak AFC West.

the decider13
05-24-2009, 10:08 AM
I don't think Denver will be as aweful as some people think, but the division is the Chargers to lose. Chiefs might improve some, but I think will still be 3rd. Same order as last year, couple more Bronco losses, couple more Chief wins.

CC.SD
05-24-2009, 11:09 AM
Come on this is such a great opportunity to revive the completely dead AFC West division board!

That said IMO the West plays out like this:

1. Chargers. and I feel okay with that. I watched some game footage of Merriman the other day...it was like eating cotton candy.

2. Chiefs: I know they're young but this decision comes down to the man under center. Over 16 games I think the new Matty Ice (just kidding!) outplays Orton/the Jamarcus and Garcia show, and that will go a long way towards pushing them. I think with a little support, Larry Johnson is going to have a good to great year as a battering ram for them. I'm also in love with their young safety duo, and I think switching to a 3-4 scheme can manufacture a bit of a pass rush for them. They currently have none so maybe the scheme can create some mismatches.

3. Raaaaiderzzz: These guys would be #2 on my list if I didn't think Jeff Garcia will needle and pressure Jamarcus Russell all the way to a nervous breakdown. That's probably more of a reflection on J-Russ but either way I don't think it's going to end well. However, I think Darren McFadden is unbelievably flying under the radar at the moment and I think he's going to do some great things in the league.

After doing some review I think the Raiders' offensive potential is a little overrated, it basically comes down to Russell and D-Mac's ceiling plus crossing your fingers that Heyward-Bey works out. They could still easily become a very productive unit.

The defense IMO has more potential than the offense, although I still think they made a big mistake bypassing Raji, who would have been a perfect fit. If they can get their front line's act together, nobody is questioning their linebackers or corners (obviously), and again you're in fingers crossed mode with the new safety Mitchell.

4. By default Broncos are last. Decider, I'm a fan of your posts and don't take this the wrong way, but it's tough to consider the Broncs being anything other than a mess after trading away a franchise QB. McDaniels is a rookie head coach who thinks the world of himself and his schemes, and if he gets away with dismissing Jay, more power to him...but I think he's in for a very big wake up call. Orton is not special. Cutler is the only reason that team did not pick #1 last year, given how bad the D was.

Alphonso Smith, Kyle Orton, and Robert Ayers for Jay Cutler: all I can say is that Ayers better be productive as hell. They can't afford for him to develop slowly either.

Can I also just say: pick the season AFTER you send your star QB packing to completely overhaul your defense. They are inviting trouble in by trying to retool their offense and defense simultaneously, and there's a chance either of them could blow up in their face. If it's both, they're totally ******.

I think Champ has a bounce back year, especially with teams picking on the rookie, and the offensive line and weapons should cover up Orton's flaws for a while, but ultimately I can't say I think this team will do well.

The Dynasty
05-24-2009, 11:32 AM
I like the chargers as most people seem to like. They still have a good QB and a excellent running game and getting Shawn Merriman back will help as well. Then the Chiefs in second, they improved greatly this off season with getting Veterans for the Defensive and then getting Matt Cassel from the Patriots. Third team in the Division I think will be the Broncos. Kyle Orton was an alright QB in Chicago with below average receivers. Now he is coming to the Broncos with Eddie Royal and Brandon Marshall a huge difference there. The main concern for the broncos will be the Defense and switching to a 3-4. I still feel they will be better than the Raiders who come in 4th place. I don't like what I have seen from Russell so far in his career. Although the signing of Jeff Garcia will help them if Russell doesn't succeed right away.

1. Chargers
2. Chiefs
3. Broncos
4. Raiders

the decider13
05-24-2009, 11:44 AM
Come on this is such a great opportunity to revive the completely dead AFC West division board!



4. By default Broncos are last. Decider, I'm a fan of your posts and don't take this the wrong way, but it's tough to consider the Broncs being anything other than a mess after trading away a franchise QB. McDaniels is a rookie head coach who thinks the world of himself and his schemes, and if he gets away with dismissing Jay, more power to him...but I think he's in for a very big wake up call. Orton is not special. Cutler is the only reason that team did not pick #1 last year, given how bad the D was.

Alphonso Smith, Kyle Orton, and Robert Ayers for Jay Cutler: all I can say is that Ayers better be productive as hell. They can't afford for him to develop slowly either.

Can I also just say: pick the season AFTER you send your star QB packing to completely overhaul your defense. They are inviting trouble in by trying to retool their offense and defense simultaneously, and there's a chance either of them could blow up in their face. If it's both, they're totally ******.

I think Champ has a bounce back year, especially with teams picking on the rookie, and the offensive line and weapons should cover up Orton's flaws for a while, but ultimately I can't say I think this team will do well.


I definately agree with your Broncos points, but I want to try and maintain some optimism. I'd like to think that the offensive weapons can cover up Orton's flaws. But if he is put in to the position of needing to win games, we are in trouble.

I'm in a tough place with part of the draft. I like alphonso smith a lot, but next years first was rough. He should help with turnovers, but he will get picked on being opposite of champ.

And I agree, if Ayers doesn't come out hittin hard, McD will be judged harshly. Same with Smith. The team has potential, and I have faith. I have never seen them finish last in the division, and I hope I don't see it this year. It will be interesting.

EDIT: Yes the AFC west boards are dead. It is very sad compared to other divisions lol

CC.SD
05-24-2009, 11:44 AM
The Chargers are only limited by their HC who simply isn't a winner no matter how much talent you give him.


Can't believe I'm defending him but Norv Turner has been winning for us. The whole team gives him credit for keeping the ship from sinking last year. He's won playoff games two years in a row despite missing the likes of LT, most of Gates, Rivers' ACL, Shawne Merriman...at a certain point Norv is going to start earning some credit. He's also the only HC in the division who isn't a rookie.

AntoinCD
05-24-2009, 03:38 PM
In my opinion it's the Charger's division for the taking once again with the only opposition being Denver. Now obviously things can change within an offseason but looking at the 4 teams.

Chargers-Merriman coming back is absolutely huge for them, plus they also got English who can help in passing situations. I expect them to be a ten win team next year.

Denver-Yeah they lost Cutler who is a very good QB, but they strengthened quite a bit. Defensively they will be exploited but they still have good weapons and will outscore opponents. Moreno could have a great year.

Raiders-Have all the skill players you could want but lack a basic core of a team. Until Russell shows that he can be a real leader they will never go far.

Chiefs-Made significant upgrades this offseason without adding flashy players. Cassell gives them stability at the QB position and Tyson Jackson will be an anchor of the D-line for a long time. Tony Gonzalez is a huge loss though.

The reason I see the divison turning out

1. Chargers
2. Broncos.
3. Raiders
4. Chiefs

Is simply because if you look at the schedules either the Chiefs or Raiders could realistically go 0-8 with the other team only beating the other.

Kansas City

Week 1 vs Baltimore Ravens
Week 2 at Oakland Raiders
Week 3 vs Philadelphia Eagles
Week 4 at New York Giants
Week 5 at Dallas Cowboys
Week 6 vs Washington Redskins
Week 7 at San Diego Chargers
Week 8 Bye Week
Week 9 vs Jacksonville Jaguars


Oakland

Week 1 at San Diego Chargers
Week 2 at Kansas City Chiefs
Week 3 at Denver Broncos
Week 4 vs Houston Texans
Week 5 vs New York Giants
Week 6 at Philadelphia Eagles
Week 7 at New York Jets
Week 8 vs San Diego Chargers
Week 9 Bye Week

yodabear
05-24-2009, 04:36 PM
This sounded like careful week by week inspection for Yodachu. This is gonna be another tough year with the West playing the NFC East and AFC North, but with out further ado..........

1. San Diego Chargers (9-7)
@ Oak L (0-1)
vs. BAL L (0-2)
vs. MIA W (1-2)
@ PIT L (1-3)
BYE
vs. DEN W (2-3)
@ KC L (2-4)
vs. OAK W (3-4)
@ NYG L (3-5)
vs. PHI L (3-6)
@ DEN W (4-6)
vs. KC W (5-6)
@ CLE W (6-6)
@ DAL W (7-6)
vs. CIN W (8-6)
@ TEN L (8-7)
vs. WSH W (9-7)

2. Kansas City Chiefs (7-9)
@ BAL L (0-1)
vs. OAK W (1-1)
@ PHI L (1-2)
vs. NYG L (1-3)
vs. DAL W (2-3)
@ WSH W (3-3)
vs. SD W (4-3)
BYE
@ JAX L (4-4)
@ OAK L (4-5)
vs. PIT L (4-6)
@ SD L (4-7)
vs. DEN W (5-7)
vs. BUF W (6-7)
vs. CLE W (7-7)
@ CIN L (7-8)
@ DEN L (7-9)

3. Oakland Raiders (6-10)
vs. SD W (1-0)
@ KC L (1-1)
vs. DEN W (2-1)
@ HOU L (2-2)
@ NYG L (2-3)
vs. PHI L (2-4)
vs. NYJ L (2-5)
@ SD L (2-6)
BYE
vs. KC W (3-6)
vs. CIN W (4-6)
@ DAL W (5-6)
@ PIT L (5-7)
vs. WSH L (5-8)
@ DEN L (5-9)
@ CLE L (5-10)
vs. BAL W (6-10)....Baltimore will be resting......

4. Denver Broncos (5-11)
@ CIN W (1-0)
vs. CLE W (2-0)
@ OAK L (2-1)
vs. DAL L (2-2)
vs. NE L (2-3)
@ SD L (2-4)
BYE
@ BAL L (2-5)
vs. PIT L (2-6)
@ WSH W (3-6)
vs. SD L (3-7)
vs. NYG L (3-8)
@ KC L (3-9)
@ IND L (3-10)
vs. OAK W (4-10)
@ PHI L (4-11)
vs. KC W (5-11)

CC.SD
05-24-2009, 04:41 PM
Loss to Oakland in the opener Yodachu? Ouch. I still agree with your divisional ranking though.

M.O.T.H.
05-24-2009, 04:52 PM
One of them is bound to surprise but, San Diego should have the division in a runaway. They're the only team in that division that scares any of us NFC East fans.

vidae
05-24-2009, 04:55 PM
I think the Chiefs go 6-10 at best. Our schedule is brutal. I would be surprised and happy with anything more than 4 wins.

619
05-24-2009, 06:14 PM
Loss to Oakland in the opener Yodachu? Ouch. I still agree with your divisional ranking though.

He's wrong. I hate to be pessimistic about our chances, but it's mainly centered around two concerns, Russell and the offensive line. Your pass rush will eat us alive, again.

The Raiders offense is overrated by the majority of ppl here, the only player worth getting really excited about is McFadden, if used correctly. DHB is raw, very raw, and Schilens, although a solid #2 option, is no gamebreaker. Who knows anymore with Walker after completing another operation to the same knee that’s bothered him since ’06, I believe. JLH, after all, is only a slot receiver, and that’s not even where we should expect the brunt of his impact on the team. Miller is a top player at his position, though I worry the QB controversy could have a slight affect on his numbers this season.

Russell I’d expect to be above average, which is simply no longer good enough for a first overall pick now entering into his second full season. It’s all up to Russell on how good he wants to be. I’m still waiting for him to accept the responsibility of being an NFL QB, and that means to go above and beyond what is expected on a daily basis. That, however, is just not him.

The running game should remain productive, but I’m not entirely optimistic the offensive linemen we brought in should really ‘patch up’ our pass protection significantly, although it’s not difficult to be an upgrade over Harris and Green in that department. The addition of O’Neal was huge, though, and he should provide a noticeable difference in both phases offensively.

The success of the defense hinges on the ability of the front 7 to apply pressure, as well as stopping the run more effectively. Hopefully, our new DC Marshall will utilize similar schemes to those used in Seattle to generate some pass rush from the LBs, as I would expect. The woes of the run defense could’ve had a little to do with Rob Ryan, but we’ll have to wait and see there. The pair of Aso and Johnson is top 3 in the league imo, both are the definition of lockdown, yes, that does include Johnson, and the safeties are nowhere near the top of my worries.

I’ve said it before, but this team could win anywhere from 5-8 games, which is dependent on far too many factors, so I’d probably lean towards 5 or 6 victories for now.

Grizzlegom
05-24-2009, 06:41 PM
I really think its going to be the same result as last year in terms of placement within the division. I think every team will improve their overall record however with San Diego going 11-5, Denver going 9-7, Oakland going 6-10, and Kansas City going 5-11.

Todd Bertuzzi
05-24-2009, 06:50 PM
1.SD
2.KC
3.Oakland
4.Denver

RaiderNation
05-24-2009, 07:03 PM
If Russell can play like he did the last few weeks last year we can be 1 or 2. I see it ending like this

1 SD
2 Oakland
3 Denver
4 KC

Shane P. Hallam
05-24-2009, 07:21 PM
And this is another reason I think the Raiders could make a run. Solid defense, and the QB position has two options. If Russell plays how he ended the season, they can be successful, even with the WR talent there. If not, Garcia is a real winner, and could carry them to .500 himself with that offense/defense. I feel like the Raiders are only two or three pieces from being a [possible] playoff team, if everything falls into place, who knows.

CC.SD
05-24-2009, 07:37 PM
And this is another reason I think the Raiders could make a run. Solid defense, and the QB position has two options. If Russell plays how he ended the season, they can be successful, even with the WR talent there. If not, Garcia is a real winner, and could carry them to .500 himself with that offense/defense. I feel like the Raiders are only two or three pieces from being a [possible] playoff team, if everything falls into place, who knows.

I agree, if everything falls into place, but I don't think Garcia taking over can be anything but a massive disappointment for Raidernation. A number 1 overall biting the dust is not an easy task for any franchise to swallow.

Me Likey Rookies
05-24-2009, 07:37 PM
LOL at people thinking Denver is by far the worst team in the divison.

Who else in the division has offensive talent like Ryan Clady, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Knowshon Moreno... etc, other than SD?

I dont care if I am the QB, the offense will move the ball...

As for defense, they have added Brian Dawkins, Andre Goodman, Alphonso Smith, Robert Ayers. Oh and Champ and DJ missed a ton of time last year with injuries. Saying they will be picking top 5 is rediculous. Everyone stop going with the flow and realize that this team is freaking talented.

the decider13
05-24-2009, 07:39 PM
LOL at people thinking Denver is by far the worst team in the divison.

Who else in the division has offensive talent like Ryan Clady, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Knowshon Moreno... etc, other than SD?

I dont care if I am the QB, the offense will move the ball...

As for defense, they have added Brian Dawkins, Andre Goodman, Alphonso Smith, Robert Ayers. Oh and Champ and DJ missed a ton of time last year with injuries. Saying they will be picking top 5 is rediculous. Everyone stop going with the flow and realize that this team is freaking talented.

I LOVE YOU NOW

CC.SD
05-24-2009, 07:44 PM
LOL at people thinking Denver is by far the worst team in the divison.

Who else in the division has offensive talent like Ryan Clady, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Knowshon Moreno... etc, other than SD?

I dont care if I am the QB, the offense will move the ball...

As for defense, they have added Brian Dawkins, Andre Goodman, Alphonso Smith, Robert Ayers. Oh and Champ and DJ missed a ton of time last year with injuries. Saying they will be picking top 5 is rediculous. Everyone stop going with the flow and realize that this team is freaking talented.

Hm I just can't agree here, and I definitely do agree that the rest of the offense has a ton of talent. Neckbeard will certainly put this theory to the test though.

The D is just not pretty though, and you just can't measure how much impact you are going to get out of the rookies or B-Dawk, especially when their front 7 is not going to be doing the back end that many favors. I don't think everyone is going with the flow, some people make their own assessments and come to different conclusions.

Woot Alston!

Xonraider
05-24-2009, 07:50 PM
Well... just to say something about the Raiders...

we won't be good this year. I just don't see it anymore. Been optimistic for about 5 years, then stopped being optimistic last offseason with Kiffin.

I think Cable is a good coach, however... Russell is all about the money, I'm sure.

DenverDex
05-24-2009, 09:24 PM
So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

For my own rankings. With the departure of Tony Gonzalez the chiefs will be hurt a little, but I see them on the rise. They have a good LT and a decent line.. Their defense is okay if they can get some pressure on the QB. For me its too close to call with Denver and KC. It'd be a crime if the Chargers didn't get first in this division with the talent they have on that team, and the amount of players they have in a contract year.


The AFC west has a brutal schedule this year.

1) Chargers 10-6
2/3) Broncos 8-8
2/3) Chiefs 7-9
4) Raiders. 5-11

619
05-24-2009, 10:04 PM
The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.


I understand you were trying to make a point, but you completely undervalued a good portion of our team.

Since when is Zach Miller a 'decent' TE?

Together, our group of RBs is very solid and should hit the top 10 in team rushing this season. That's a bit more than I can expect from the Broncos’ group, this year at least.

Let's not even compare the QB situations, we have a QBofTF, you do not. Our backup is arguably better than your starter, so let’s stop there.

You trash our DL, yet what exactly do you have?

Oh, and ‘above average’ secondary. LOL.

Aso/CJ > Bailey/Goodman/Smith
I’ll give you a major edge with the safeties, though.

But other than that, you’re about right. :rolleyes:

SubNoize
05-24-2009, 10:20 PM
So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

I'd like to know what drugs some of you guys are on.

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.



Okay, so Zach Miller is much better than decent, he's been the only consistent threat in our passing game over the past 2 years, and the guy is blocking over half the plays, and still caught 50 passes.

Our secondary had 3 players statistically ranked in the top 12 last year based on forced incompletion stats and yards allowed in Nnamdi, Chris Johnson and Stanford Routt. Much more than above average even though the S situation is unknown at this point.

Oakland's offensive line has improved based on the personnel changes made this off-season. Barnes is better than Kwame, Satele was a capable starter for Miami and adding Pears and Johnson to push out Green is huge. Robert Gallery is a great LG, yes he busted at tackle but he's a pro bowl caliber G. Obviously Denver has a better line, but it's untrue to say Oakland has no line.

Russell had over a 90 pass rating in our last 3 games, and an 85 for the last 6 with young unproven weapons at wideout, that's pretty impressive, and he's much more talented than Orton.

And the run game for Oakland is decent? Seriously? Bush proved his worth the last game of the year, he's a starter in this league. McFadden showed glimpses of being a great #1 back despite having 2 turf toes and a shoulder that was hurt week 2, he has the size/speed combo that is almost unmatched. Fargas is one of the hrdest runners in the league and never quits, he's a starter in this league as well. You have a collection of lifetime backups, and a rookie...

I'm by no means predicting where the teams will fall, but you act as if Denver is a playoff bound team and Oakland is the 2008 Lions, you're just an extremely misinformed hater.

Timbathia
05-24-2009, 10:45 PM
Short answer to the topic is that SD win the division by at least 3 games.

KC won 2 games last year and have lost their best offensive weapon to the Falcons. They are not 6 games better than last year despite improving in other areas.

Oakland is heading in the right direction, despite Al Davis's best efforts, but still have a few seasons to go. They dont win 8 games.

There is a lot of "denver on the road to disaster" talk going around that is a bit overstated. The defense is considerably better personnel-wise than last year despite the front 7 still being below par. Special teams this year are also much better (thanks Josh - this was always Shanny's weak point). Denver has more talented personnel on the roster this year than last despite losing Cutler if you average across the defense, offense and special teams.

The loss of Cutler is not actually as important to the performance of the offense as is the installation of a new offense. Orton's physical skills are more than adequate to run this new system, but Denver's record this year will be heavily tied to how he mentally handles it and how quickly the offense as a whole figure out what to do and when to do it.

Denver was lucky to win 8 games last year, and with the new offensive scheme (and defensive), it is highly unlikely they get close to winning 8 this year (despite the better personnel).

I predict that KC, Den and Oak pretty much split their divisional games, and each maybe win 1 or 2 others. There is every possibility none of them win 6 games.

Iamcanadian
05-25-2009, 12:05 AM
So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

I'd like to know what drugs some of you guys are on.

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

For my own rankings. With the departure of Tony Gonzalez the chiefs will be hurt a little, but I see them on the rise. They have a good LT and a decent line.. Their defense is okay if they can get some pressure on the QB. For me its too close to call with Denver and KC. It'd be a crime if the Chargers didn't get first in this division with the talent they have on that team, and the amount of players they have in a contract year.


The AFC west has a brutal schedule this year.

1) Chargers 10-6
2/3) Broncos 8-8
2/3) Chiefs 7-9
4) Raiders. 5-11

Like all homer fans, you just don't want to see the writing on the wall. Denver's defense was the equal of Detroit's last year and I'm not seeing where it was significantly improved in what is considered a very weak draft year. They are still going to give up huge amounts of yardage and points. At least last year, they had an offense that could keep them off the field occasionally, but without Cutler, the offense is very suspect.
Orton isn't close to being a solid NFL starting QB, he far closer to a career backup QB. Orton cannot win by throwing the ball, he must have a solid running attack to be anything close to effective. Teams are going to take away the run and force Orton to beat them through the air. The OL had it easy with Cutler escapability, let's see how they function with a statue at QB. The WR's only had to get half a step for Cutler's arm to get them the ball, they are going to have to get a lot more separation with Orton throwing them the ball.
Then there is the coaching. Will the players accept their new HC or look at him like he is some idiot who couldn't keep a good thing going. BB coordinators don't actually have a great track record for success, ask Cleveland and Notre Dame??? NE doesn't use Shanahan's blocking schemes so the OL may have to make quite a few adjustments to their new blocking assignments and there is no guarantee they all will adjust well.
What's comical to me is that a lot of Denver fans are living in the past, so used to success that they cannot fathom that a disaster could be occurring right before their eyes but I'd have to set the odds at 70 to 30 that Denver has at least a top 10 pick and maybe even a top 5 pick after this coming season. Too bad your HC traded your 1st rounder for a nickle back, he going to add it to his lists of total blunders and I'll be shocked if he still has the job after this season. I mean, how many blunders can one man make???

DenverDex
05-25-2009, 12:08 AM
I understand you were trying to make a point, but you completely undervalued a good portion of our team.

Since when is Zach Miller a 'decent' TE?

Together, our group of RBs is very solid and should hit the top 10 in team rushing this season. That's a bit more than I can expect from the Broncos’ group, this year at least.

Let's not even compare the QB situations, we have a QBofTF, you do not. Our backup is arguably better than your starter, so let’s stop there.

You trash our DL, yet what exactly do you have?

Oh, and ‘above average’ secondary. LOL.

Aso/CJ > Bailey/Goodman/Smith
I’ll give you a major edge with the safeties, though.

But other than that, you’re about right. :rolleyes:


Haha, Russel, QB of the future? Good luck with that :rolleyes: Somebody that has all the physical talent in the world, but has no brains to play in today's NFL. I'll give you that I might have undervalued your TE. But my point is, everyone putting the Raiders over the Broncos based on soley the QB position is a JOKE.

Denvers overall offensive talent > Oaklands overall offensive talent. Even if Russell and DHB did pan out, how the heck is he going to throw the ball with that offensive line? I'd say it couldn't get any worse after Kwame Harris, but its the raiders we're talking about.

Orton > Russel and Old man
Garcia who will be on the bench > Russell/Simms

McFadden is a Reggie Bush type player in this league, he's soft after contact. Fargas is the only reason I'd call your running back group solid.

Oaklands Defense isn't going to be much better than Denver's. That's my point. Niether Team has a D-line worth anything, but they have a good secondary.


Oakland gets hyped every year by Raider Nation and they're always disappointed. Oh well, a lot more fun that way I guess.

DenverDex
05-25-2009, 12:16 AM
Like all homer fans, you just don't want to see the writing on the wall. Denver's defense was the equal of Detroit's last year and I'm not seeing where it was significantly improved in what is considered a very weak draft year. They are still going to give up huge amounts of yardage and points. At least last year, they had an offense that could keep them off the field occasionally, but without Cutler, the offense is very suspect.
Orton isn't close to being a solid NFL starting QB, he far closer to a career backup QB. Orton cannot win by throwing the ball, he must have a solid running attack to be anything close to effective. Teams are going to take away the run and force Orton to beat them through the air. The OL had it easy with Cutler escapability, let's see how they function with a statue at QB. The WR's only had to get half a step for Cutler's arm to get them the ball, they are going to have to get a lot more separation with Orton throwing them the ball.
Then there is the coaching. Will the players accept their new HC or look at him like he is some idiot who couldn't keep a good thing going. BB coordinators don't actually have a great track record for success, ask Cleveland and Notre Dame??? NE doesn't use Shanahan's blocking schemes so the OL may have to make quite a few adjustments to their new blocking assignments and there is no guarantee they all will adjust well.
What's comical to me is that a lot of Denver fans are living in the past, so used to success that they cannot fathom that a disaster could be occurring right before their eyes but I'd have to set the odds at 70 to 30 that Denver has at least a top 10 pick and maybe even a top 5 pick after this coming season. Too bad your HC traded your 1st rounder for a nickle back, he going to add it to his lists of total blunders and I'll be shocked if he still has the job after this season. I mean, how many blunders can one man make???

I can see realistically. I will openly state right now that Denvers defense of 2008 was the worst defense I've ever seen put on a field in the NFL. We fired the worst defensive coordinator of all time however, and that in itself is a huge upgrade for our defense. Playing a safety 30 yards down the field and giving wide recievers 10 yard cushions every game is the definition of fail. Bob "I'll be happy if we hold them to field goals" Slowik is the worst coach in a coordinator position of all time.

Factor in we had two of our better players in DJ Williams and Champ bailey injured for a good portion of the season, and that'll help if they come back healthy next year. I'm sorry but there is no way our defense can be that bad next year. Nolan should do a solid job, and we did get some more talent, but I'm not expecting anything big from the defense considering we still don't have a line with a lot of potential.

Cutler did make Denver's o-line better, but not by as much as you'd like to believe. Clady was one of the best LT's in the game last year, and Harris, his counterpart at RT is underrated and played lights out as well. If there's any weakness its that our center is aging, and our LG is undersized.

As far as Josh McDaniels is concerned, yeah he's made some pretty big mistakes, but its not all on him. Cutler could have played this year with a chip on his shoulder, and for a huge contract but what did he do? He demanded a trade and decided not to be a leader of this team. I don't care how much talent he has, if he doesn't want to play for the team I love, I don't want him to.

McDaniels made some questionable moves in the draft. All the players we got in round 1-2 are good football players, but did we reach on a couple namely Quinn and Smith? Probably.

I'm realistic, and people that can't see that the raiders have no O-line, unproven WR's and a pretty boneheaded "QBotF" aren't.

Also: Orton is a capable QB in this league. He isn't flashy, and probably won't ever be elite, but that "statue" will have better weapons and better protection than he ever had in Chicago. We'll see how he does, but I don't think he's as bad as everyone is making him out to be.

SubNoize
05-25-2009, 12:38 AM
Haha, Russel, QB of the future? Good luck with that :rolleyes: Somebody that has all the physical talent in the world, but has no brains to play in today's NFL. I'll give you that I might have undervalued your TE. But my point is, everyone putting the Raiders over the Broncos based on soley the QB position is a JOKE.

Denvers overall offensive talent > Oaklands overall offensive talent. Even if Russell and DHB did pan out, how the heck is he going to throw the ball with that offensive line? I'd say it couldn't get any worse after Kwame Harris, but its the raiders we're talking about.

Orton > Russel and Old man
Garcia who will be on the bench > Russell/Simms

McFadden is a Reggie Bush type player in this league, he's soft after contact. Fargas is the only reason I'd call your running back group solid.

Oaklands Defense isn't going to be much better than Denver's. That's my point. Niether Team has a D-line worth anything, but they have good secondary's.


Oakland gets hyped every year by Raider Nation and they're always disappointed. Oh well, a lot more fun that way I guess.

Why Orton over Rusell? Because you say so or what? You offer nothing to back that up, if you wanted to compare their first 2 seasons, which would be the only fair way to do so, they played nearly an equal amount of games, and yet Russell has better stats through their first 2, with a worse line and equally as bad receiving corp.

Orton
18GP 66.8 QB Rating 233 completions 448 attempts 52% completion 2347 yards 12 TD 15 INTS sacked 32 times

Russell
19GP 73.9 QB Rating 234 completions 434 attempts 54% completion 2796 yards 15 TD 12 INTS sacked 37 times

and McFadden is nothing like Bush, besides their speed, McFadden is much better after contact, he also offers more as a blocker.

Again Khalif Barnes is obviously much better than Kwame Harris, They allowsed the same # of sacks last year, but Kwame played 11 and Khalif played all 16. If we could shave 7 sacks off the left side that's more opportunity for Russell to air it out.

Stop hating on the Raiders beause you're bitter about people blasting Denver because of their dysfunctional offseason, I hate to break it to you but there's a chance you finish worse than Oakland, get used to the idea bro or you may have a tough year ahead.

CC.SD
05-25-2009, 01:07 AM
So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

I'd like to know what drugs some of you guys are on.

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

For my own rankings. With the departure of Tony Gonzalez the chiefs will be hurt a little, but I see them on the rise. They have a good LT and a decent line.. Their defense is okay if they can get some pressure on the QB. For me its too close to call with Denver and KC. It'd be a crime if the Chargers didn't get first in this division with the talent they have on that team, and the amount of players they have in a contract year.


The AFC west has a brutal schedule this year.

1) Chargers 10-6
2/3) Broncos 8-8
2/3) Chiefs 7-9
4) Raiders. 5-11

Do you really have to accuse other users of being on drugs for being down on the team that traded away Jay Cutler?

All those amazing things you listed that Denver still has...well throw in an exponentially better QB and you still have a team that struggled to 8 wins. That's including some out of the ordinary business against San Diego and New Orleans.

In my humble opinion, they didn't do enough to fix their D, which was a sieve last year. Certainly not enough to offset the loss of Cutler. Orton struggles more as more is asked of him, and a lot is going to be on his shoulders, given how bad the D is. Transitions to a new defense are never as easy or simple as they seem, especially when you're starting from scratch like Denver is. Scratch is too harsh, they've got some building blocks in Bailey and Ayers. But I still think the point is valid.

DenverDex
05-25-2009, 01:25 AM
Why Orton over Rusell? Because you say so or what? You offer nothing to back that up, if you wanted to compare their first 2 seasons, which would be the only fair way to do so, they played nearly an equal amount of games, and yet Russell has better stats through their first 2, with a worse line and equally as bad receiving corp.

Orton
18GP 66.8 QB Rating 233 completions 448 attempts 52% completion 2347 yards 12 TD 15 INTS sacked 32 times

Russell
19GP 73.9 QB Rating 234 completions 434 attempts 54% completion 2796 yards 15 TD 12 INTS sacked 37 times

and McFadden is nothing like Bush, besides their speed, McFadden is much better after contact, he also offers more as a blocker.

Again Khalif Barnes is obviously much better than Kwame Harris, They allowsed the same # of sacks last year, but Kwame played 11 and Khalif played all 16. If we could shave 7 sacks off the left side that's more opportunity for Russell to air it out.

Stop hating on the Raiders beause you're bitter about people blasting Denver because of their dysfunctional offseason, I hate to break it to you but there's a chance you finish worse than Oakland, get used to the idea bro or you may have a tough year ahead.

You're right a Bush comparison to McFadden is a bad one. Bush doesn't get chased down from behind. Oh, but McFadden is a capable blocker! Awesome so is Fargas and a lot of other running backs that are on the FA market. McFadden doesn't run with toughness or power, and runs high. He's going to be a decent player but won't ever be worth the spot he was drafted at.

Same with Russell. He might end up being a capable backup, but he's not a "QBotF" based on how he's performed on the field and has looked in the off-season. Reports are that he's performed pretty poorly in the off-season and some proof of that is in the Garcia signing. Maybe Garcia can teach him how to study the game, but I find that unlikely as Garcia is probably going to want the starting QB spot all to himself.

Khalif Barnes is nothing special but yeah he'll be better than Harris. He'd be a pretty good RT. My main gripe with the Raiders O-line is that it played AWFUL last year, and they had the chance to pickup the steal of a lifetime in Eugene Monroe, but didn't. If the Raiders would have picked up Monroe, I'd be more willing to put Oakland in a 3 way tie with KC and Denver. Al Davis has no idea what he's doing however, and passed up on a chance to have a good off season.

I don't hate on the Raiders because I'm bitter. I'm not bitter, Denver has had a rough off season, and I expect people to think we're going to suck. I ju st can't see how anyone can call Oakland "A team on the rise" who has gone 24-72 in the last 6 years, with really no improvement in sight.

Orton over Russell based purely off of how Orton played last season. Orton played pretty well before his injury, and will have more tools around him than he's ever had in a more QB friendly system. He's also a hard worker according to reports and got praise by his old teammates for being a hard worker and team leader when he was traded from Chicago. Orton has at the very least proved he won't lose a game for his team, if called upon. The same can't be said for Russell.

Again Denver's overall Offensive talent > Oakland's.

Don't mistake me saying that I actually think Denver is going to play well enough to make the playoffs, but Oakland will be lucky to win 6 games next year. They'll split with Denver and KC, get swept by SD yet again, then beat Cleveland, Cincinnati, and maybe Houston. I'd give the Raiders credit if they deserved any but for the last 6 years its been the same story in the offseason:

Raiders fans "OMG we're a team on the rise! The Raiders are going to be halfway decent next year"

Season: Raiders 5-11

Raiders fans GG T_T

DenverDex
05-25-2009, 01:32 AM
Do you really have to accuse other users of being on drugs for being down on the team that traded away Jay Cutler?

All those amazing things you listed that Denver still has...well throw in an exponentially better QB and you still have a team that struggled to 8 wins. That's including some out of the ordinary business against San Diego and New Orleans.

In my humble opinion, they didn't do enough to fix their D, which was a sieve last year. Certainly not enough to offset the loss of Cutler. Orton struggles more as more is asked of him, and a lot is going to be on his shoulders, given how bad the D is. Transitions to a new defense are never as easy or simple as they seem, especially when you're starting from scratch like Denver is. Scratch is too harsh, they've got some building blocks in Bailey and Ayers. But I still think the point is valid.

There was no way our defense could have been fixed in one off season, and if you read my posts you will see that I never said they'll be good. I know for a fact though they can't be as bad as last years because that will probably be the worst defense ever put on a field.

The drugs phrase was merely used as a figure of speech and it isn't my intention to offend people. So I'll watch what I say in the future if that's the case and I'll edit that out of my post.

As far as asking more out of Orton - Yeah he might be asked to do more than he did in Chicago. However, we should have a capable ground and short passing attack if he cant handle some of the bigger throws. Orton also successfully operated the no huddle really well in Chicago, if you ever get a chance watch some of the Vikings @ Chicago game from last year. Orton is a smart player, but I won't believe he'll amount to anything close to what Cutler brought this team until I see it.

Me Likey Rookies
05-25-2009, 03:18 AM
The Jamarcus Russell as QBOTF talk should hold off for a lil while. I just dont think he cares enough to be anything good in this league. I actually thought the Raiders were going in the right direction (especially after steam rolling the Bucs on the ground) but then they went and drafted DHB at #7.

So that was a good reminder that Al Davis is indeed still owning the team and that OAK prolly wont be good untill he is dead. I dont want to sound like a Jamarcus-hater but I just dont think he wants it mentally. I think this team can win 8 games with Garcia. That might even mean playoffs in the AFC.

And then for the people ragging on Orton, you probably havent seen him play last year and are thinking of his rookie year. He was putting up numbers before he got hurt last year. Look at what Cassel did with Moss and Welker, that is what Orton has to do with Marshall and Royal.

Sveen
05-25-2009, 04:46 AM
1. San Diego Chargers (9-7)
Wins: @OAK, MIA, DEN, OAK, KC, @CLE, @DAL, CIN, WAS
Losses: BAL, @PIT, @KC, @NYG, PHI, @DEN, @TEN

2. Kansas City Chiefs (7-9)
Wins: OAK, DAL, SD, DEN, BUF, CLE, @CIN
Losses: @BAL, @PHI, NYG, @WAS, @JAC, @OAK, PIT, @SD, @DEN

3. Denver Broncos (5-11)
Wins: CLE, @OAK, SD, OAK, KC
Losses: @CIN, DAL, NE, @SD, @BAL, PIT, @WAS, NYG, @KC, @IND, @PHI

4. Oakland Raiders (4-12)
Wins: NYJ, KC, CIN, BAL
Losses: SD, @KC, DEN, @HOU, @NYG, PHI, @SD, @DAL, @PIT, WAS, @DEN, @CLE

JFLO
05-25-2009, 07:19 AM
Didn't Russell show up at voluntary mini-camps at like 280?

I mean, I heard the guy looked like he was pregnant

vidae
05-25-2009, 12:30 PM
I appreciate the Chiefs love but I think people are failing to really look at the bigger picture.

Over the first 8 games we could potentially be 0-8. I know every team COULD be, theoretically, but we realistically could be. This is how our first 8 games go:

@Ravens, Raiders, @Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, @Redskins, @Chargers, @Jags.

Between weeks 3 and 6 we play the entire NFC East. This is a TOUGH schedule. Don't get me wrong, I'd be ecstatic if we won 7 games, but anything more than 4 wins this year seems unlikely. Not that I don't like what we've done in the offseason/free agency/draft, for the most part I do, but with anyone would have a tough time with a schedule like ours, and I'm not sure our defense is ready for these teams.

awfullyquiet
05-25-2009, 12:33 PM
vidae. i think you give too much credit to the nfc east.

CC.SD
05-25-2009, 12:38 PM
I appreciate the Chiefs love but I think people are failing to really look at the bigger picture.

Over the first 8 games we could potentially be 0-8. I know every team COULD be, theoretically, but we realistically could be. This is how our first 8 games go:

@Ravens, Raiders, @Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, @Redskins, @Chargers, @Jags.

Between weeks 3 and 6 we play the entire NFC East. This is a TOUGH schedule. Don't get me wrong, I'd be ecstatic if we won 7 games, but anything more than 4 wins this year seems unlikely. Not that I don't like what we've done in the offseason/free agency/draft, for the most part I do, but with anyone would have a tough time with a schedule like ours, and I'm not sure our defense is ready for these teams.

In this division, starting 0-8 does not necessarily mean coming in last. or third. Or even potentially second.

BamaFalcon59
05-25-2009, 12:57 PM
People are failing to realize that the Broncos have Eddie Royal.

vidae
05-25-2009, 02:00 PM
vidae. i think you give too much credit to the nfc east.

Maybe, but I don't think so. It's hard to argue against the fact that every team in the NFC East is better than the Chiefs right now, is it? Some divisions have a team (or two!) that seems to match up well against us on paper, except the NFC East imo.

In this division, starting 0-8 does not necessarily mean coming in last. or third. Or even potentially second.

Fair enough. :)

People are failing to realize that the Broncos have Eddie Royal.

But the Chiefs have Brandon Flowers! Who wins in this epic contest?!

jkpigskin
05-25-2009, 02:02 PM
I think a lot of people are underestimating the broncos. Despite the huge loss of Cutler, I still feel that they will still finish 2nd in this division. The broncos will def have a change of offensive philosophy but i like the skill position players they have. I believe that Moreno will be a good runner in this league and the broncos have 2 very skilled recievers. The key is the D

Also, i feel that the chiefs will be better this season.

my standings
1. Chargers
2. Broncos
3. Chiefs
4. Raiders

with only the chargers going to the playoffs

Seamus2602
05-25-2009, 02:18 PM
Personally, I think the AFC West teams are better than they are given credit for.

San Diego are one of the most talented teams in the NFL, with a top quality Quarterback, Hall of Fame Running Back, good Wide Receivers, Elite Tight End, strong Offensive Line, strong Defensive Line, top quality Linebackers and a good secondary. It is only natural that they are most peoples pick for this division.

I'm not as down on Denver and Kansas City as some people. Denver have a Quarterback who will manage games. He won't win any games, but he won't throw crazy passes either. They have talented Running Backs, and if McDaniels can retain Shanahan's run system then they have a system that will allow Running Backs to overproduce. They have top quality Wide Receivers, a very good Tight End and a very good Offensive Line. The less said about their Defensive Line the better, but their Linebackers are good and their Secondary, while old, is very talented. I don't feel that Denver are going to get to the playoffs but there are much worse teams in the NFL than the Broncos.

Kansas are also in a better situation than people give them credit for. They have a good Quarterback, decent Running Backs, good Receivers, decent Tight Ends, a Offensive Line that they are retooling with some very talented people, a Defensive Line with top talent, good Linebackers and a decent Secondary. Again, they aren't gonna blow teams away and they will almost certainly not make playoffs but there still better than people are claiming.

Oakland are an enigma. The have a talented, but under developed, Quarterback, a top quality Running Back committee, one of the best blocking FB in the NFL (which is worth more than people give credit for), one of the best young Tight Ends in the NFL, good Athletes at WR, a decent Offensive Line, maybe lacking a bit in quality, a decent D-Line and Linebacker corp and a very good Secondary. The major difficulty with Oakland is that they seem to be the worst run team in the NFL. Oakland, in terms of talent, should be challenging for playoffs this year, while in reality, could struggle for 3rd.

The way I see it is

1 - San Diego Chargers
2 - Denver Broncos
3 - Kansas City Cheifs
4 - Oakland Raiders

with only San D getting playoffs.

NIN1984
05-25-2009, 02:51 PM
I'm actually pretty high on the Chargers right now, they will make a serious run this season. We all blast Norv Turner but so far he got his team to the AFC Championship game and than got an injury plagued team that got off to an awful start to turn it around and make the playoffs. Year 3 could be the year for Norv Turner...

bernbabybern820
05-25-2009, 03:09 PM
Jeez you know the AFC West is bad when you have arguments about which team is less sucky.

bantx
05-25-2009, 03:30 PM
chargers
chiefs
broncos
raiders

Iamcanadian
05-26-2009, 12:30 AM
I can see realistically. I will openly state right now that Denvers defense of 2008 was the worst defense I've ever seen put on a field in the NFL. We fired the worst defensive coordinator of all time however, and that in itself is a huge upgrade for our defense. Playing a safety 30 yards down the field and giving wide recievers 10 yard cushions every game is the definition of fail. Bob "I'll be happy if we hold them to field goals" Slowik is the worst coach in a coordinator position of all time.

Factor in we had two of our better players in DJ Williams and Champ bailey injured for a good portion of the season, and that'll help if they come back healthy next year. I'm sorry but there is no way our defense can be that bad next year. Nolan should do a solid job, and we did get some more talent, but I'm not expecting anything big from the defense considering we still don't have a line with a lot of potential.

Cutler did make Denver's o-line better, but not by as much as you'd like to believe. Clady was one of the best LT's in the game last year, and Harris, his counterpart at RT is underrated and played lights out as well. If there's any weakness its that our center is aging, and our LG is undersized.

As far as Josh McDaniels is concerned, yeah he's made some pretty big mistakes, but its not all on him. Cutler could have played this year with a chip on his shoulder, and for a huge contract but what did he do? He demanded a trade and decided not to be a leader of this team. I don't care how much talent he has, if he doesn't want to play for the team I love, I don't want him to.

McDaniels made some questionable moves in the draft. All the players we got in round 1-2 are good football players, but did we reach on a couple namely Quinn and Smith? Probably.

I'm realistic, and people that can't see that the raiders have no O-line, unproven WR's and a pretty boneheaded "QBotF" aren't.

Also: Orton is a capable QB in this league. He isn't flashy, and probably won't ever be elite, but that "statue" will have better weapons and better protection than he ever had in Chicago. We'll see how he does, but I don't think he's as bad as everyone is making him out to be.

Great comeback, this reasoning is solid but I still think Denver is in serious trouble and I'm not sold on McDanials delivering the goods. I think his inexperience is too obvious to ignore and I don't think he is ready yet to deliver. I'll be very surprised if his inexperience doesn't sell well to his players and they leave him hanging out to dry once they realize he is in way over his head. Sometimes hiring exceptionally young HC's has serious drawbacks and I think it will soon be obvious that McDanials was a bad hire.

DenverDex
05-26-2009, 02:59 AM
Great comeback, this reasoning is solid but I still think Denver is in serious trouble and I'm not sold on McDanials delivering the goods. I think his inexperience is too obvious to ignore and I don't think he is ready yet to deliver. I'll be very surprised if his inexperience doesn't sell well to his players and they leave him hanging out to dry once they realize he is in way over his head. Sometimes hiring exceptionally young HC's has serious drawbacks and I think it will soon be obvious that McDanials was a bad hire.

I think McDaniels can be an excellent head coach in this league. The question is, is it with the Broncos? Do his players buy into what he's selling with some of the larger mistakes he's made? Its hard to know. I'm more positive than most on it because the fact that with the exception of Tony Scheffler, Jays best friend on this team, no one on the team said anything positive about Cutler as he left or negative about McDaniels when the big trade went down.

I think this means a lot, its been pretty common news that Cutler wasn't the most popular guy on the team. At least not popular to the defense. I'm actually not worried about the defense buying into the system, because I think the combination of Dawkins bringing leadership and the opportunity for a fresh start with a new coaching staff will help.

All the new offensive players should buy it, but for the most part can our O-line and receiving groups buy into the changes? We'll have to see. I personally think we're going to have an average year which is 7 or 8 wins. We won't be in the AFC west cellar though.

Kurve
05-26-2009, 03:10 AM
Haha, Russel, QB of the future? Good luck with that :rolleyes: Somebody that has all the physical talent in the world, but has no brains to play in today's NFL. I'll give you that I might have undervalued your TE. But my point is, everyone putting the Raiders over the Broncos based on soley the QB position is a JOKE.


Hmmmm if i can recall didnt you guys trade away your franchise quarterback of your team? I think its far worse to trade away a proven young pro bowl quarterback then putting some faith on a young quarterback who still has a lot to prove. What denver did was pretty much throwing away the lottery ticket to be contenders in the division year in and year out for 10+ years with that trade. Denver's only highlight last year was Cutler and yes one player will drastically change your team especially when that player was the face of the franchise and the leader of that team. The Games you won was due to Cutler's being able to keep that offense on that field and scoring points we both know Broncos D couldn't hold a high school team out of the endzone let alone any team from the NFL.

So with that said, how will your team fare any better then they did last year? Has the defense improved? Who is compensating for the talent they traded away in Cutler who btw was the best player on your team? I just think there is no room to talk, yeah people will bash for what the raiders have done now and in the past with bone head moves, but they never traded away a young franchise quarterback who was the best player on the team for a couple of first round picks lol. Now good luck with that!!!

Timbathia
05-26-2009, 03:18 AM
I think McDaniels can be an excellent head coach in this league. The question is, is it with the Broncos? Do his players buy into what he's selling with some of the larger mistakes he's made? Its hard to know. I'm more positive than most on it because the fact that with the exception of Tony Scheffler, Jays best friend on this team, no one on the team said anything positive about Cutler as he left or negative about McDaniels when the big trade went down.

I think this means a lot, its been pretty common news that Cutler wasn't the most popular guy on the team. At least not popular to the defense. I'm actually not worried about the defense buying into the system, because I think the combination of Dawkins bringing leadership and the opportunity for a fresh start with a new coaching staff will help.

All the new offensive players should buy it, but for the most part can our O-line and receiving groups buy into the changes? We'll have to see. I personally think we're going to have an average year which is 7 or 8 wins. We won't be in the AFC west cellar though.

Also keep in mind that when the season starts McDaniels will be in his element. He has had a tough run so far as HC and many people questioned his experience to handle this role, but there is no-one knocking his skills when it comes to Xs and Os. If he shows that he can hold his own once the play-calling starts, then all this off-season stuff will be forgiven (and the experience will make him a better coach for it). Players as well as fans like winning, and if he shows that his game plans are capable of that (even if he doesnt have the horses to get him the wins just yet), then the players and fans will be onboard pretty quick. If Denver goes 0-16, well then he may have an extremely short coaching career, but I dont see that happening. I think he is on the right track, but it isnt a track that will bring immediate results.

DenverDex
05-26-2009, 03:30 AM
Hmmmm if i can recall didnt you guys trade away your franchise quarterback of your team? I think its far worse to trade away a proven young pro bowl quarterback then putting some faith on a young quarterback who still has a lot to prove. What denver did was pretty much throwing away the lottery ticket to be contenders in the division year in and year out for 10+ years with that trade. Denver's only highlight last year was Cutler and yes one player will drastically change your team especially when that player was the face of the franchise and the leader of that team. The Games you won was due to Cutler's being able to keep that offense on that field and scoring points we both know Broncos D couldn't hold a high school team out of the endzone let alone any team from the NFL.

So with that said, how will your team fare any better then they did last year? Has the defense improved? Who is compensating for the talent they traded away in Cutler who btw was the best player on your team? I just think there is no room to talk, yeah people will bash for what the raiders have done now and in the past with bone head moves, but they never traded away a young franchise quarterback who was the best player on the team for a couple of first round picks lol. Now good luck with that!!!

I never said this team will be better than last years. But then again last years only won 8 games. So getting 7-8 wins shouldn't be out of the picture.

Put the Broncos at 3rd or 4th for all I care. I don't see how we're worse than the Raiders though and I don't see how people think the Raiders are a team on the rise. The Raiders didn't trade away a good QB? Wow, that's cool, since they don't even have one to trade away. I'd suggest you clearly read my posts, because I've answered most of the points in this post. Our defense even if it stays at rank 32 is no way going to be as bad as last years. Its virtually impossible.

Oh and let me remind everyone while we had a top 5 offense, we still were only 16th in points scored. Hopefully the addition of some running backs will help our red zone efficiency when we actually get there.

Iamcanadian
05-26-2009, 09:39 AM
Also keep in mind that when the season starts McDaniels will be in his element. He has had a tough run so far as HC and many people questioned his experience to handle this role, but there is no-one knocking his skills when it comes to Xs and Os. If he shows that he can hold his own once the play-calling starts, then all this off-season stuff will be forgiven (and the experience will make him a better coach for it). Players as well as fans like winning, and if he shows that his game plans are capable of that (even if he doesnt have the horses to get him the wins just yet), then the players and fans will be onboard pretty quick. If Denver goes 0-16, well then he may have an extremely short coaching career, but I dont see that happening. I think he is on the right track, but it isnt a track that will bring immediate results.

No one thought Crennel and Weis wouldn't be good HC's either and neither of them has a job now. Mangini has been fired once already and is looking shaky in Cleveland. BB's coordinators actually have a poor track record as HC's so whose to say McDanials is any better???

thenewfeature06
05-26-2009, 09:56 AM
I do believe the Chargers finish first, with Merriman now back and picking up solid players in the draft they will cruise in the afc west. I think Mcdaniels will struggle in Denver, Oakland can be a wild card team if the defense gets stops and the offensive line plays better, and the Chiefs i havent quite understood some of the moves they have performed in the off season but its all on Cassel IMO

SuperKevin
05-26-2009, 10:46 AM
This is going to be the ugliest division in football by far. If San Diego doesn't win at least 5 of the 6 division games then they should see it as a failure

nepg
05-26-2009, 11:05 AM
I am not sold on the Chargers winning this division. I've got the Chiefs going 4-2 in this division (sweep Oakland and split the others). But that doesn't mean they win it.

People are underselling Denver by a lot. This is just a side effect of how much people are railing on McDaniels. He made a personel decision that most people don't agree with, that doesn't mean the entire team is turning to ****. The Broncos are insanely talented and did nothing but add to that talent level in the off-season. Their defense will be better by leaps and bounds, and the offense will be different, but just as (if not more) productive.

San Diego...not sure what to think. They underachieve all year, then hit a soft spot in their schedule and pull a playoff seed out of their ass. Then **** the bed in the playoffs. This is nothing new from this team or from Norv Turner. If they start slow again, don't expect another great rebound because the other teams might not be amazing, but they're all much better organized than they were a year ago.

abaddon41_80
05-26-2009, 11:16 AM
I am not sold on the Chargers winning this division. I've got the Chiefs going 4-2 in this division (sweep Oakland and split the others). But that doesn't mean they win it.

People are underselling Denver by a lot. This is just a side effect of how much people are railing on McDaniels. He made a personel decision that most people don't agree with, that doesn't mean the entire team is turning to ****. The Broncos are insanely talented and did nothing but add to that talent level in the off-season. Their defense will be better by leaps and bounds, and the offense will be different, but just as (if not more) productive.

San Diego...not sure what to think. They underachieve all year, then hit a soft spot in their schedule and pull a playoff seed out of their ass. Then **** the bed in the playoffs. This is nothing new from this team or from Norv Turner. If they start slow again, don't expect another great rebound because the other teams might not be amazing, but they're all much better organized than they were a year ago.

The Broncos defense might actually be worse than it was last year. The only one of the free agents that they added that will make any kind of impact is Dawkins, they have like 50 defensive backs over 30 years old, they still have no defensive line, their linebackers are okay at the very best, and Mike Nolan is the defensive coordinator.

Warpig
05-26-2009, 04:31 PM
I appreciate the Chiefs love but I think people are failing to really look at the bigger picture.

Over the first 8 games we could potentially be 0-8. I know every team COULD be, theoretically, but we realistically could be. This is how our first 8 games go:

@Ravens, Raiders, @Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, @Redskins, @Chargers, @Jags.

Between weeks 3 and 6 we play the entire NFC East. This is a TOUGH schedule. Don't get me wrong, I'd be ecstatic if we won 7 games, but anything more than 4 wins this year seems unlikely. Not that I don't like what we've done in the offseason/free agency/draft, for the most part I do, but with anyone would have a tough time with a schedule like ours, and I'm not sure our defense is ready for these teams.

Finally a grounded Chiefs fan!

I agree that this division is the Chargers barring a melt down of epic proportions.

After that, I always go with "defense wins championships". Obviously, the 3 remaining teams in this division won't be winning any type of championships, but I'd rank them according to their defenses.

Oakland - has a pretty solid defense if they can just get the DL to step up. They have arguably the best corner in the league and a solid LB corps. They also have explosiveness on offense...though perhaps somewhat inconsistent. It all relies on Russell.

Denver - Denver and KC went back and forth trying to be the worst defense in the league last year. But Denver still has Champ Bailey taking away one side of the field and they brought in Brian Dawkins at Safety. They also have a very good LB corps. Their D-line was the weakness last year and injuries to the LB corps. They still have playmakers at all the offensive skill positions and a game manager (think Trent Dilfer) in Orton. I just don't trust McDaniels.

Kansas City - Yuck. Questionable O-line. No consistency at WR (yes, they have Bowe but I believe he led the league in dropped passes last year). You can say they brought in Engram, but he's a 36 year old posession guy who will not help you forget about losing Tony G. A huge question mark at QB. I am in no way sold on Cassel and I think he is greatly overhyped. What's gonna happen in the backfield? Will LJ straighten up? Use Jamaal Charles like JJ Arrington? Now...let's talk about the lack of a defense. Talk about forcing square pegs into round holes. They have a solid, young secondary, but how long does it take before Pioli and Haley overhaul that with "their guys"? They don't have any LB's that fit a 3-4 system other than Zach Thomas who is collecting SS checks at the moment. Vrabel is a no show and is also on the wrong side of 30 and it wouldn't surprise me if he retires!:eek: DJ is a 4-3 LB...and yes, there is a difference so he probably won't last long. Then there is the d-line...or lack thereof. You have 1/3 of what you need for a 3-4 d-line in Tyson. And he was a HUGE reach where they drafted him. All the other d-linemen they have are 4-3 guys. This is gonna be an atrocious team.

I know everyone has those offseason rose colored goggles on, but I honestly don't see anyway the Chiefs can win more than 3 games. Sure...ANYTHING can happen on any given Sunday. But on paper, these guys are a joke.

I think the division plays out like this:

1 - Chargers
2 - Broncos
3 - Raiders
4 - Chiefs (possibly picking #1 overall in 2010)

DenverDex
05-26-2009, 04:31 PM
The Broncos defense might actually be worse than it was last year. The only one of the free agents that they added that will make any kind of impact is Dawkins, they have like 50 defensive backs over 30 years old, they still have no defensive line, their linebackers are okay at the very best, and Mike Nolan is the defensive coordinator.

There is no way. It is impossible, our 2008 defense was the worst defense ever put on a field in the NFL. Mostly because of the scheme we ran. We got rid of the worst coordinator of all time. Our defense might still be bad, but it wont be that bad.

Timbathia
05-26-2009, 04:38 PM
I just noticed that the line on the Broncos wins this year has opened at 7.5 in Vegas. I assume that all the people lining up to anoint the Broncos as the new worst team in the league are now gonna put their money where their mouth is and jump all over the under on this?????

abaddon41_80
05-26-2009, 05:00 PM
There is no way. It is impossible, our 2008 defense was the worst defense ever put on a field in the NFL. Mostly because of the scheme we ran. We got rid of the worst coordinator of all time. Our defense might still be bad, but it wont be that bad.

No, you added the worst defensive coordinator of all time. Get ready for constant 5 defensive back sets with the linebackers playing 10 yards off of the LoS.

DenverDex
05-26-2009, 05:39 PM
No, you added the worst defensive coordinator of all time. Get ready for constant 5 defensive back sets with the linebackers playing 10 yards off of the LoS.

NOPE. Bob Slowik holds that title =p. Nothing beats lining a safety up 30 yards down the field and giving the other team 10 yard cushions the whole game.

Iamcanadian
05-26-2009, 09:58 PM
I just noticed that the line on the Broncos wins this year has opened at 7.5 in Vegas. I assume that all the people lining up to anoint the Broncos as the new worst team in the league are now gonna put their money where their mouth is and jump all over the under on this?????

I would have no trouble taking those odds and betting against Denver. The book makers know that most of the money bet on any game comes from home town fans and they try to suck as much money out of them as possible before telling anybody what they really think.
If your so convinced that Denver will met those odds, why don't you take out a sizable bet on them. I'd be willing to bet, you aren't as confident as you say.

Timbathia
05-27-2009, 01:57 AM
I would have no trouble taking those odds and betting against Denver. The book makers know that most of the money bet on any game comes from home town fans and they try to suck as much money out of them as possible before telling anybody what they really think.
If your so convinced that Denver will met those odds, why don't you take out a sizable bet on them. I'd be willing to bet, you aren't as confident as you say.

When did I ever say anything that even resembled a claim that Denver would win 8 games? In fact I said that I doubted any team in the AFC West except SD would win 6 games! My last post is referring to the fact some people think Denver will be Detroit-bad this year because of McDaniels and losing Cutler. It has nothing to do with how good I think Denver will be.

I know there are people like you around that dont read others posts and just like to try and make themselves heard, but come on man, at least skim read everyones post in the thread before saying stupid things.

CC.SD
05-27-2009, 02:41 AM
San Diego...not sure what to think. They underachieve all year, then hit a soft spot in their schedule and pull a playoff seed out of their ass. Then **** the bed in the playoffs. This is nothing new from this team or from Norv Turner. If they start slow again, don't expect another great rebound because the other teams might not be amazing, but they're all much better organized than they were a year ago.


Well at least you admit yourself that you don't know what you're thinking. Hm it must be a coincidence that the Chargers started winning when LT, Gates, and Jamal Williams finally got healthy. And seriously, how do you bash their playoff runs? Yah they really sucked barely losing the AFC Championship without their stars...darn they were such a mess last year taking down the Colts, barely losing to the Steelers without Merriman. I make it a point to reserve my neg repping for non-homer purposes and I'll stick to that, but damn please align your opinion with common sense.

Bucs_Rule
05-27-2009, 11:01 AM
Chargers and it won't be close. Last season they finished very strong, at the start of the year their were losing a ton of very close games.

The Broncos finished badly plus they lost Cutler and didn't do all that much to fix the Defense. They will regress.

The Chiefs got Cassell and he should provide some kind of an upgrade. They added a little to the D, but they still have lots of work to move to a 3-4.

And the Raiders are the Raiders.

Easiest division to project by far.

661rep
05-31-2009, 12:07 PM
1. Chargers - The most talented team in the division.

2. Raiders - Finished the season strong by winning their last two games against two teams who were fighting for a playoff spot. Russell looked better at the tail end of the season. McFadden was suffering from two turf toe injuries and i've read that he is healthy and looking fast again. Michael Bush ran for 150+ yards in the last game against Tampa so it's safe to say he is healthy and him and McFadden could be a great 1-2 punch. I think the offense will be better this year. The Defense should be slightly better as well, and the Raiders are good at special teams Higgins/Lechler/Janikowski.

3. I think it's really a tossup with Chiefs/Broncos. I'm not sure what either team will do. Both teams made huge changes and it will be interesting to see how these teams play.

BuddyCHRIST
05-31-2009, 01:30 PM
Definitely have the Chargers as the favorite and they could be one of the elite AFC teams if they play consistent and the secondary steps it up. Outside of that its a crap shoot, the Raiders are really talented but who the heck knows what they are ever gonna do, Russell has the skills but no work ethic and lazy QB's never make it. Then the Chiefs and Broncos have so much change that they could go any direction.

Iamcanadian
05-31-2009, 11:12 PM
When did I ever say anything that even resembled a claim that Denver would win 8 games? In fact I said that I doubted any team in the AFC West except SD would win 6 games! My last post is referring to the fact some people think Denver will be Detroit-bad this year because of McDaniels and losing Cutler. It has nothing to do with how good I think Denver will be.

I know there are people like you around that dont read others posts and just like to try and make themselves heard, but come on man, at least skim read everyones post in the thread before saying stupid things.

Of course nobody knows what the future will bring? What we are saying is that the odds favour Denver flopping this coming season and McDanials having serious problems as a young HC. We base this judgment on a # of things, loss of your franchise QB, disbelief in Orton as the solution, don't believe for a moment that your defense will be much improved as it will have to stay on the field a lot longer without Cutler running the offense, and that McDanials showed his immaturity/inexperience as a HC in the Cutler fiasco and the trade of your #1 pick and that these types of errors in judgment will show up again in his HC duties with his players. Does this guarantee Denver WILL stink, NO, it is only a calculated guess. The games still have to be played out on the field before it really means anything. How we feel about the coming season in the scheme of things has zero impact. However, based on what we believe, we see Denver in last place, very lucky to attain 4 wins. Sorry, but that is how I see it.

yourfavestoner
06-01-2009, 04:17 AM
Of course nobody knows what the future will bring? What we are saying is that the odds favour Denver flopping this coming season and McDanials having serious problems as a young HC. We base this judgment on a # of things, loss of your franchise QB, disbelief in Orton as the solution, don't believe for a moment that your defense will be much improved as it will have to stay on the field a lot longer without Cutler running the offense, and that McDanials showed his immaturity/inexperience as a HC in the Cutler fiasco and the trade of your #1 pick and that these types of errors in judgment will show up again in his HC duties with his players. Does this guarantee Denver WILL stink, NO, it is only a calculated guess. The games still have to be played out on the field before it really means anything. How we feel about the coming season in the scheme of things has zero impact. However, based on what we believe, we see Denver in last place, very lucky to attain 4 wins. Sorry, but that is how I see it.

Plus they're switching to a brand new defensive system and will feel growing pains. Switching to the 3-4 doesn't just magically make your defense better, and blaming last year's failures solely on scheme is very shortsighted. Players not plays.