PDA

View Full Version : Most overrated teams going into the season


D-Unit
07-23-2009, 08:05 PM
Discuss .

princefielder28
07-23-2009, 08:11 PM
The Dallas Cowboys

I have it discussed in my Truths thread.

SugarSean
07-23-2009, 08:16 PM
I don't think anybody is overrating them. They're projected to go anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7. They might be the most UNDERrated team this season.

SugarSean
07-23-2009, 08:18 PM
The Dallas Cowboys

I have it discussed in my Truths thread.

Just scanned over your truths thread and the part about the Cowboys might be the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Their defense is VASTLY improved this year. You really counting trading Henry as a loss? Get real.

ChezPower4
07-23-2009, 08:18 PM
I don't think anybody is overrating them. They're projected to go anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7. They might be the most UNDERrated team this season.

I wouldn't call the Cowboys underrated at all.

jsagan77
07-23-2009, 08:18 PM
The NY Giants.. I really want to see how they do w/o Plax and Ward. My guess, 8-8 or 9-7

Gay Ork Wang
07-23-2009, 08:19 PM
the whole NFC South besides the Saints

SugarSean
07-23-2009, 08:20 PM
I wouldn't call the Cowboys underrated at all.

This, of course, depends on which projections you're looking at. If they're projected to be 10-6 I don't think they are underrated. But anything less than that, yes.

princefielder28
07-23-2009, 08:23 PM
Just scanned over your truths thread and the part about the Cowboys might be the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Their defense is VASTLY improved this year. You really counting trading Henry as a loss? Get real.

Where is their defense improved? Please share Einstein, I want to hear what you have to say.

Gay Ork Wang
07-23-2009, 08:24 PM
they lost TO!

KCJ58
07-23-2009, 08:27 PM
Dallas Cowboys

diabsoule
07-23-2009, 08:38 PM
The Giants did fine last year without Plax and they drafted Ward's replacement in Andre Brown, plus they have another RB in Danny Ware that their expecting good things from. Not only that but they added some significant pieces to their defense and Kenny Phillips will have a year of NFL experience under his belt.

I think the one team that is getting overrated is the Philadelphia Eagles. Sure, they drafted Maclin but he's coming from a spread offense and will have to adjust to the pro-style set. Their DC has been undergoing cancer treatment, they lost Brian Dawkins, the leader of their secondary. I do like the moves that they have made but I don't think it's going to be enough for them to finish first in the NFC East. I think that honor will go to the NY Giants.

M.O.T.H.
07-23-2009, 08:41 PM
I'd agree that Dallas' defense should be improved this season. And they werent even that bad last season. But anyway, You lose Canty but pick up Olshansky, that's pretty much a lateral move. Brooking replaces Thomas...who was absolutely awful in the middle for us. Brooking has played in Wade's defense before and he has more left in the tank then Zach did. He could end up being a nice addition...i certainly expect him to be better than Thomas, who should have opted for retirement, instead of going to KC. Then you factor in the speed factor. We have more speed now at OLB, CB, and S. With Spencer, Jenkins, and Sensabaugh starting.

Ellis still has a lot to offer but, he proved to be a liability as well. It was time for him to go back to end, full time. Spencer, a former first round pick, is the superior athlete and is finally getting his shot. While, I really liked Henry, his speed had diminished and he was always injured, no longer as effective as he once was. Jenkins will be an upgrade. And then Sensabaugh comes in replacing Roy Williams/Keith Davis....He's no pro bowler but, he is certainly an upgrade at the position. They're younger and faster...But their main core of defensive stars, remains intact. I expect them to be better...and again, they actually werent a poor unit last season. Leading the nfl sacks and finishing top 5 against the pass.

So recap:

Olshansky = Canty (or atleast wont be a major drop off)

And Ellis, Henry, Thomas, and Williams were all players w/ eroding skills. They've been replaced w/ superior athletes.

TitleTown088
07-23-2009, 08:48 PM
I think I'll go with the Falcons and the Cowboys.

HM: Bears.

MidwayMonster31
07-23-2009, 08:52 PM
Last year, I would've said Dallas, but not this year. They got rid of TO to make this team more Romo-friendly, which could end badly with their pass protection. They also lost Chris Canty and replaced him with Igor Olshansky. I would not be surprised at all if they finished last in the division.
I am going to go with the Eagles as overrated. Hopefully the chemotherapy goes well for Jim Johnson. McDermott probably won't be able to call the plays as effectively. Sean Jones is a talent upgrade, but I don't see him commanding the defense the way Dawkins did.
For the offense, Jason Peters will not get it done after getting paid. Westbrook is hurt, but I think McCoy can carry the load if he has to. DeSean Jackson will improve, but I doubt that Maclin does much this year as a receiver, but he should do well as a return man. I don't think Philly will do as well as people think they will.

ricowboy
07-23-2009, 08:53 PM
I'll go with the Colts......They have lost alot and Manning cannot compensate for coaching....

D-Unit
07-23-2009, 08:55 PM
How come every year the Cowboys are marked as an overrated team? They haven't done jack in over 12 years. None of the national pundits are hyping them up. Yet, still... many people are calling them overated. I don't know who overrates them really. Not even people who make our 2010 mock drafts have them winning much. One guy even has us passing on Taylor Mays. hahaha.

ricowboy
07-23-2009, 08:56 PM
Last year, I would've said Dallas, but not this year. They got rid of TO to make this team more Romo-friendly, which could end badly with their pass protection. They also lost Chris Canty and replaced him with Igor Olshansky. I would not be surprised at all if they finished last in the division.
I am going to go with the Eagles as overrated. Hopefully the chemotherapy goes well for Jim Johnson. McDermott probably won't be able to call the plays as effectively. Sean Jones is a talent upgrade, but I don't see him commanding the defense the way Dawkins did.
For the offense, Jason Peters will not get it done after getting paid. Westbrook is hurt, but I think McCoy can carry the load if he has to. DeSean Jackson will improve, but I doubt that Maclin does much this year as a receiver, but he should do well as a return man. I don't think Philly will do as well as people think they will.

Great points on the Eagles......They will be in a dogfight with the G-men for top spot......Dallas has too much talent to end up 4th in the division.....Skins are another year older and not alot of young talent on the team.

Todd Bertuzzi
07-23-2009, 08:58 PM
New Orleans is being overrated imo.

Todd Bertuzzi
07-23-2009, 08:59 PM
Great points on the Eagles......They will be in a dogfight with the G-men for top spot......Dallas has too much talent to end up 4th in the division.....Skins are another year older and not alot of young talent on the team.

I don't think Philly will win the division, but I do think they will go the furthest in the playoffs.

SugarSean
07-23-2009, 09:02 PM
Where is their defense improved? Please share Einstein, I want to hear what you have to say.

Compared to u I guess I am Einstein, so I will share the facts with you.

1) Exit Roy Williams. Enter Sensabaugh. No need to explain. Please dear God don't say this needs an explanation.

2) Exit Anthony Henry. This was another huge whole in the secondary. He was physical but much too slow and took too many risks on short patterns. Easily beat by any double move or by anybody with a hint of speed. Enter a year older, more experienced Scandrick or Jenkins. Scandrick is a very solid NFL corner with a chance to be a stud. He needs to be out on the field more. Jenkins didn't have as good of a rookie season as Scandrick, but not many rookie cornerbacks did. Jenkins showed flashes, which is what you expect from a rookie, so now give him the chance to play. There's no way in hell that after another training camp and with the experience he got last year that he will perform worse than Henry. Newman, Scandrick, Jenkins over Newman, Henry, Jenkins any day.

3) Exit Chris Canty. Enter Igor Olshansky. Let's call a spade a spade. Canty is SOLID but no where near deserving of the money for which he was asking. In a vacuum would I rather have Canty over Igor? Probably...but in this situation not really. They're a wash and if you consider the salary part of it, I'd much rather have Igor. Neither has much responsibility or is asked to put up big numbers in Wade's system. Granted, I think Canty will be much more valuable for the Giants than he was for the Giants, b/c they're going to move him around and have him on the inside but for the Cowboys, he was expendable. I'm not going to argue for one second that Igor is an upgrade over Canty head up but when you consider all the improves the team has made, losing Canty will mean absolutely nothing.

4) Exit Zach Thomas. Enter Keith Brooking. Brooking, much like Igor, is comfortable in Wade's system and has had success in it before. He's bigger and younger than Thomas and I believe he has more left in the tank as well. I will not lie and say he will be a major upgrade over Thomas but he is an upgrade, nonetheless.

5) Exit Greg Ellis. Enter Anthony Spencer. Ellis is what he is and the team wanted to be younger and more athletic on defense. Spencer hasn't been a world beater but he hasn't exactly busted either. Keep in mind, that it's impossible to judge someone by what they do in limited time. He, much like Henry, is not doing anything spectacular for the team and really is only blocking the young talent from getting a chance to contribute.

6) Exit Brian Stewart. Enter Wade Phillips. Everybody saw how much the defense improved last year when Wade took over all the playcalling duties on defense. I'm excited to see what he can do this year with his mind/scheme and a younger, more athletic Cowboys defense. Him calling the shots from day one is a HUGE upgrade.


The only area where I see the team making a bad move on defense recently is letting Burnett go but there was nothing they really could do about that. This edition of the Cowboys defense will be the strongest they've had in quite some time.

Todd Bertuzzi
07-23-2009, 09:11 PM
The Cowboys will yet again take a back seat in the division to the Eagles and Giants. Are they improved? Yeah, maybe, but at the end of the day Tony Romo will fade come December as usual.

Seriously though I believe they are improved (addition by subtraction), but I still don't feel it's enough to get deep into the playoffs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they got in as a wild card, but I just can't see them getting out of the second round.

princefielder28
07-23-2009, 09:14 PM
Thanks for writing a detailed response but I fail to see where they VASTLY improved. At the very best the defense is equally as talented but I think Cowboys' fans will become disgruntled by Igor for his lack of drive after getting paid but we'll see. Turning the youth may work for the first half of the year but how will they respond to a full season, getting the majority of the reps? The offense has more problems too and that's actually the unit that worries me more, not the defense.

superman8456
07-23-2009, 09:22 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the Ravens this season. They lost a lot, but had players that can step in. I'm just not sure those players can play like the players that left. Rex Ryan is also a top 3 DC in the NFL.

Patriots are being SOO overrated. Its really annoying. People expect Tom Brady to comeback from his torn ACL like nothing happened, but I believe its going to effect his play next season.

TACKLE
07-23-2009, 09:22 PM
I would say the Miami Dolphins. I really don't see them as a playoff contender this year. Last year, they had a great season but a lot of their games were close and could have gone either way. They had ridiculously few turnovers last year and that will be tough to repeat. Also, they played the AFC and NFC West last year which were the two worst divisions in football. This year they play the AFC and NFC South, arguably the two best divisions. They were able to take advantage of a lot of teams last year with the Wildcat but I don't think it will be quite as successful even with Pat White. Usually teams that are bad then have a big rise tend to even back out somewhere in the middle. I see them winning 6-7 games.

SugarSean
07-23-2009, 09:27 PM
Thanks for writing a detailed response but I fail to see where they VASTLY improved. At the very best the defense is equally as talented but I think Cowboys' fans will become disgruntled by Igor for his lack of drive after getting paid but we'll see. Turning the youth may work for the first half of the year but how will they respond to a full season, getting the majority of the reps? The offense has more problems too and that's actually the unit that worries me more, not the defense.


Fair enough. I can totally accept that line of thought. It probably would be better if I said they'll be no worse than last year with a chance to be vastly improved. There's much more upside to this defense.

I have to disagree with you on the offense, as well. I'll take a healthy Kosier, Felix, RW and more experienced Bennett and Choice over last year's unit. The only thing they lost is T.O. and he's a shell of his former self. Easily one of the top 10 most overrated players in the league. My biggest concern with the O is the o-line's age. If they can stay healthy, this year's offense will be dangerous.

BlindSite
07-23-2009, 10:16 PM
the whole NFC South besides the Saints

The saints on this board are being given more props than any other team in the south and unjustifiably so. They've been expected to fire for a while now since their NFCCG appearance and are yet to do so.

There's no reason to expect Carolina or Atlanta to fall off. The Saints are still third in the division and Carolina and Atlanta are still two of the top teams in the NFC.

Brothgar
07-23-2009, 10:24 PM
IMO

1. Indy Colts
2. Philly Eagles (I'm guilty too)
3. NO Saints
4. Miami Dolphins

I can't see how the Cowboys are over rated most people at least in the forums anyway I haven't seen anyone even giving them a wild card.

Sniper
07-23-2009, 10:40 PM
The Giants did fine last year without Plax

They did? 3-4 in the last seven games, including the playoffs. Some of the notables include 14 points against Philly at home, 8 against Dallas on the road, and 11 at home against Philly in the playoffs. They averaged 20.8 ppg in that time frame. They averaged 29.2 ppg before that.

and they drafted Ward's replacement in Andre Brown, plus they have another RB in Danny Ware that their expecting good things from.

The running game's not the issue. The passing game is. Andre Brown and Danny Ware don't play WR. The passing game went down the crapper after Burress' incident.

Not only that but they added some significant pieces to their defense and Kenny Phillips will have a year of NFL experience under his belt.

Defense wasn't the problem either.

I'm not sold on the Giants. Yes, they can run the ball and play defense, but you do have to pass it occasionally. Show me who their #1 WR is. In that offense, you need one. They don't have it.

SuperMcGee
07-23-2009, 11:26 PM
I would say the Miami Dolphins. I really don't see them as a playoff contender this year. Last year, they had a great season but a lot of their games were close and could have gone either way. They had ridiculously few turnovers last year and that will be tough to repeat. Also, they played the AFC and NFC West last year which were the two worst divisions in football. This year they play the AFC and NFC South, arguably the two best divisions. They were able to take advantage of a lot of teams last year with the Wildcat but I don't think it will be quite as successful even with Pat White. Usually teams that are bad then have a big rise tend to even back out somewhere in the middle. I see them winning 6-7 games.

The natural order of things will be back in the AFC East this year. Pats will be way up, and no other team breaking .500

steelernation77
07-23-2009, 11:58 PM
New England.

SugarSean
07-24-2009, 03:03 AM
The natural order of things will be back in the AFC East this year. Pats will be way up, and no other team breaking .500


SuperMcgee...what the **** is the guy in your avatar's name. I had a crazy flashback to my WCW days from when I was like 10 years old. That's dude's a wrestler right?

SFbear
07-24-2009, 04:51 AM
SuperMcgee...what the **** is the guy in your avatar's name. I had a crazy flashback to my WCW days from when I was like 10 years old. That's dude's a wrestler right?

La Parka

http://www.wrestlingworld.it/Historical/Biografie/laparka/06wcw.jpg

Heh..."The Chairman of the WCW"
Flashback indeed.

fenikz
07-24-2009, 05:26 AM
kind of going off the espn power rankings

Ravens(6) Jets(20)

thats about it

diabsoule
07-24-2009, 05:41 AM
The saints on this board are being given more props than any other team in the south and unjustifiably so. They've been expected to fire for a while now since their NFCCG appearance and are yet to do so.

There's no reason to expect Carolina or Atlanta to fall off. The Saints are still third in the division and Carolina and Atlanta are still two of the top teams in the NFC.

Unlike past years, this year we actually have a defensive coordinator.

wicket
07-24-2009, 05:46 AM
the whole NFC South besides the Saints
New Orleans is being overrated imo.

whilst i disagree with both, having these posts so close together made me giggle.

With respect to the NFCS:
I think the falcons are somewhat overrated due to the fact that they played the easiest schedule ever last season, I think they actually might get better but end up with a worse record because of the schedule.
Given how people rate the bucs they can hardly be overrated, there is no place left on the lower side.
The panthers are a big mystery to me next season. all is in the hands of delhomme who can play like a proper qb and can play like a moron, if he does the first they'll be really good, otherwise not so much.
My saints homer bias!!!!!!!, I think we will do pretty well, but we are depending on four things imo.
-does our defensive backfield gel quickly enough (the talent is there now)
-are we able to get a stable running game (young interior linemen might develope enough + nobody knows how good pierre thomas is exactly)
-DLine production (despite teams passing on us all the time cuz we score so much we still didnt get a lot of sacks, must be better)
-less injuries(bush, shockey, colston,half the OLine,Smith,Ellis just to name a few of the less enjoyable absentees for a big part of the season, surely lightning cant strike twice, please)

gouldo
07-24-2009, 06:50 AM
The Jets. They have a rookie QB, they have a disgruntled pair of RB's, they have lost a solid receiver in Coles, and really only have Cotchery plus a few unknowns, they have a 2008 FA star signing in Pace who is suspended for the 1st 4 games, they have a rookie head coach and many so called experts are claiming they will have a winning season & playoff bound. No chance.

Gay Ork Wang
07-24-2009, 07:18 AM
the panthers have yet to have back to back winning seasons under Fox

Mauck
07-24-2009, 07:58 AM
Houston seems to be every sports writers pick as the dark horse team this year, but I just don't see it.

They've improved their front 7 on defense, but their secondary is just awful. Their best corner is Dunta Robinson who is a shadow of what he was before the injury, and their other corners are just terrible. At safety they have an undersized linebacker who stinks in coverage, and a slow corner who is average on a good day.

Their offense could be a juggernaut if they can stay healthy, but if Slaton goes down for any length of time there is absolutely nothing behind him. Without a running game their play action oriented passing attack isn't going to be very effective, which is going to leave their injury prone QB exposed.

The odds of them having more than 8-9 wins is pretty slim, and I don't see them as a playoff team.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-24-2009, 08:31 AM
They did? 3-4 in the last seven games, including the playoffs. Some of the notables include 14 points against Philly at home, 8 against Dallas on the road, and 11 at home against Philly in the playoffs. They averaged 20.8 ppg in that time frame. They averaged 29.2 ppg before that.



The running game's not the issue. The passing game is. Andre Brown and Danny Ware don't play WR. The passing game went down the crapper after Burress' incident.



Defense wasn't the problem either.

I'm not sold on the Giants. Yes, they can run the ball and play defense, but you do have to pass it occasionally. Show me who their #1 WR is. In that offense, you need one. They don't have it.



We redesigned the system to fit our existing WRs. We have Manningham, Hixon, Smith, Nicks, Barden, Moss, and Tyree. We also drafted Beckum as well. This new system is going to be adjusted big time to fit our existing talent. We don't need a # 1 WR. We are not even a hardcore passing team. We are a running team, and we will have the balance now which we didn't when we had Burress.

Running the ball (Ball control), and great defense is going to be how we win. I think we will utilize alot of different WR personnels and mix and match depending on our opponent.

Sniper
07-24-2009, 08:41 AM
We redesigned the system to fit our existing WRs. We have Manningham, Hixon, Smith, Nicks, Barden, Moss, and Tyree. We also drafted Beckum as well. This new system is going to be adjusted big time to fit our existing talent. We don't need a # 1 WR. We are not even a hardcore passing team. We are a running team, and we will have the balance now which we didn't when we had Burress.

Manningham- Has done nothing so far.
Hixon- A good slot receiver, maybe a decent #2 if he hits his potential.
Smith- Third down guy.
Nicks- Hasn't played a down.
Barden- Hasn't played a down.
Tyree- Give me a break.

I firmly believe that Manning needs a #1. He's done nothing to dispel those thoughts.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-24-2009, 08:46 AM
Manningham- Has done nothing so far.
Hixon- A good slot receiver, maybe a decent #2 if he hits his potential.
Smith- Third down guy.
Nicks- Hasn't played a down.
Barden- Hasn't played a down.
Tyree- Give me a break.

I firmly believe that Manning needs a #1. He's done nothing to dispel those thoughts.

That's why you refit the offense to fit the existing group. They still have a certain skill set, and so you adjust the passing game to fit it. Smith is going to playing Z, Hixon X, in the regular package, and in the other personnel groups everyone will be playing different spots.

With the offense not adjusted when Plax went down it's pretty damn hard for Manning to do much with a 90 year old Toomer and Hixon basically tossed in as X full time, with plays designed for Plax's skill set.

I am 100% confident two veteran coaches like Coughlin and Gilbride fixed this issue from last season during this years offseason.

You will see.. I am not worried. It's not like we are the Arizona Cards and throw a million times a game.

AntoinCD
07-24-2009, 11:35 AM
Overrated teams;

Falcons-They will be a good team but their defense isn't good enough plus Matt Ryan and Michael Turner have to show they can do it for more than one year. Gonzo will be a big help though.

Bears-The defense has been slipping in the past few years and without much weapons outside of Forte and Olsen then Cutler wont do much.

Cincinnatti-A lot of people are saying they could make playoffs and are a potential sleeper pick. Palmer gives them a lot but even with rising stars like Leon Hall, Keith Rivers etc they are still a mediocre team in my opinion. Plus they play in a tough division.

A few thoughts on some previous comments. The Giants are not overrated in my view. With their defense and run game plus a few dependable WRs and very good o-line they will be tough to beat. I don't get why a few are saying the Patriots. The only thing that can be argued is if Brady isn't mentally prepared yet. But even if he is he will still be better than Cassell. Plus the defense, run game and TEs have all improved from the '07 season.

derza222
07-24-2009, 11:41 AM
kind of going off the espn power rankings

Ravens(6) Jets(20)

thats about it

Wow, how bad do you think the Jets are going to be? Top 5 pick? I have to admit I won't be surprised with anything the team does this year unless they do very, very well so it's hard for me to say I disagree. But you must think they'll definitely be awful to list them as overrated based off of a power ranking of 20.

bsaza2358
07-24-2009, 12:15 PM
How come no one is mentioning Indianapolis with the loss of Dungy? Sure, their offense remains potent, but losing their unifying force could prove problematic. Their RB situation still appears unsettled, and is the D good enough and healthy enough to finish? The rest of the division isn't getting worse... I'll go with the Colts.

TACKLE
07-24-2009, 01:57 PM
How come no one is mentioning Indianapolis with the loss of Dungy? Sure, their offense remains potent, but losing their unifying force could prove problematic. Their RB situation still appears unsettled, and is the D good enough and healthy enough to finish? The rest of the division isn't getting worse... I'll go with the Colts.

I was just about to post that. They really haven't gotten better and division is going to be even stronger. They lost Tony Dungy and Ron Meeks and they haven't added anyone defense. You know there offense will be good but its not as dominant as it used to be/ People are assuming they're going to be as good as they usually are but I think this year they will drop down a bit. I understand with Peyton you can never count out the Colts but I predict that they'll miss the playoffs with a 9-7 record.

TitleTown088
07-24-2009, 02:39 PM
How come no one is mentioning Indianapolis with the loss of Dungy?

Because Geo will cut my balls off if I did. :)

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-24-2009, 02:50 PM
According to this thread: Dallas, all the NFC south, giants, falcons, ravens, patriots, Miami, jets, houston, bears, and Cincinnati, almost half of the league. Hard to believe the colts are overrated, Manning will be starting injury free, and the offense should be enough to carry them to the playoffs.

Sniper
07-24-2009, 03:43 PM
That's why you refit the offense to fit the existing group. They still have a certain skill set, and so you adjust the passing game to fit it. Smith is going to playing Z, Hixon X, in the regular package, and in the other personnel groups everyone will be playing different spots.

With the offense not adjusted when Plax went down it's pretty damn hard for Manning to do much with a 90 year old Toomer and Hixon basically tossed in as X full time, with plays designed for Plax's skill set.

I am 100% confident two veteran coaches like Coughlin and Gilbride fixed this issue from last season during this years offseason.

You will see.. I am not worried. It's not like we are the Arizona Cards and throw a million times a game.

Why didn't they adjust the offense when Plax went down? I understand that you can't revamp the entire playbook, but still. Honestly, what receiver should teams be afraid of? Who's going to command double teams the way Plax did? Who's going to take that extra safety out of the box?

BlindSite
07-24-2009, 04:22 PM
Unlike past years, this year we actually have a defensive coordinator.

Not trying to sound like an asshole, but every year the saints have a new cornerback or new linebacker or several new draft picks or a new coach who's going to change things.

I'll agree a lot of pieces of the puzzle have been added, largely due to the previous years drafting and signing so I expect an improvement, but I don't think you can simply be given benefit of the doubt, due to the track record.

the panthers have yet to have back to back winning seasons under Fox

A few years ago Tom Brady never threw more than 28 touchdowns, DeAngelo Williams never had more than 500 yards and Jay Cutler was a bronco.

We american football dude.

Keep in mind last year the Carolina backfield as a unit produced over 5 yards per carry...

Carolina line ranked first in both conversions on short yardage running plays with a 79 percent conversion rate and in percentage of yardage gained beyond 10 yards. In other words even in obvious running situations 4/5 times the Panthers converted and more often than anyone in the league one of the backs popped a run for more than 10 yards.

This is with the starting offensive line only having 7 games as a complete unit.

Behind Otah a rookie there was a DVOA average of 4.6ypc off right tackle.

Their sacks allowed was good enough for 9th in the league.

With a great offensive line and running game, not to mention a top 5 receiver and solid defense it's hard to see Carolina having a losing season.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-24-2009, 04:58 PM
Why didn't they adjust the offense when Plax went down? I understand that you can't revamp the entire playbook, but still. Honestly, what receiver should teams be afraid of? Who's going to command double teams the way Plax did? Who's going to take that extra safety out of the box?


Why didn't they adjust it when plax went down? No time! We keep getting week 4 bye!!!!! LOL. Can't do anything after that. Do you know what it is like week after week to prepare as a coach? You are set in your routine and don't have time to re-adjust everything! You have to just continue on. You can add a play or too, but if you managed to create a scheme for Plax's skillset, and he is not there, you're screwed! You simply have no time to do anything else during a game week.

Why do you need to be afraid of any WR? This isn't a video game! Football is a game of matchups, so all we need do now is adjust it to our existing wrs, and use our personnel packages accordingly. So it depends on the team we play, and what their weakness is. And from there we utilize our WRs and TEs accordingly.

Keep in mind we win games because we run the ball, control the clock, and play good defense. Now that we have our guys back and added extra, we will be fine.

You do realize you don't double team every single play even when plax was there. But now, teams will play man on man, probably with no double teams meaning we will force them to creep the safety down, and when they do, we can use play action or find a matchup and work it. We have the WRs, it's up to the teams to have the depth at CB.

I would be curious to see how Beckum does against the SS. He would be a great mismatch if he can stay healthy. We are not a vertical stretch offense to begin with. So what we'd probably do is throw short to intermediate routes and move the chains that way, especially considering we get 5 yard s a pop per carry.

Again it's no need to be worried, now that veteran offensive coaches have a full offseason to draft and re-adjust this passing scheme.

tjsunstein
07-24-2009, 05:06 PM
According to this thread: Dallas, all the NFC south, giants, falcons, ravens, patriots, Miami, jets, houston, bears, and Cincinnati, almost half of the league. Hard to believe the colts are overrated, Manning will be starting injury free, and the offense should be enough to carry them to the playoffs.

Yep, and according to the other thread about half the league is underrated leaving it balanced in the end.

BuddyCHRIST
07-24-2009, 05:59 PM
I think the Ravens will fall back down to be a 7ish win team, not really overrated because people aren't talking them up too much. I also think the Titans and Dolphins will come back down and miss the playoffs.

In the NFC the Falcons will come back down, I could also see the Giants not living up to expectations just because.

Sniper
07-24-2009, 08:57 PM
Why didn't they adjust it when plax went down? No time! We keep getting week 4 bye!!!!! LOL. Can't do anything after that. Do you know what it is like week after week to prepare as a coach? You are set in your routine and don't have time to re-adjust everything! You have to just continue on. You can add a play or too, but if you managed to create a scheme for Plax's skillset, and he is not there, you're screwed! You simply have no time to do anything else during a game week.

Doesn't it concern you a little bit that they weren't able to find a way to at least tweak the playbook? I mean, 3-4 in your last seven, including losing at home in the playoffs and never threatening to score in that game, can't be comforting.

Why do you need to be afraid of any WR? This isn't a video game!

This has nothing to do with video games. The Eagles, for one, showed that they were petrified of Plax. Jim Johnson said that in the first game, they doubled Plax around 70% of the time. That's quite a bit. Look at the difference it made.

@ Philly- Giants won 36-31 with Plax
Eli Manning- 17-31, 191 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT
Running game- 45 carries, 219 yards, 4.9 ypc, 2 TD

@ NY- Eagles won 20-14 w/o Plax
Eli Manning- 13-27, 123 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT (Garbage time TD with 0:15 left)
Running game- 24 carries, 88 yards, 3.7 ypc, 0 TD

@ NY- Eagles won 23-11 w/o Plax
Eli Manning- 15-29, 169 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT
Running game- 32 carries, 138 yards, 4.3 ypc

Look at the games against Dallas.

@ NY- Giants win 35-14 with Plax
Eli Manning- 16-27, 147 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT
Running game- 34 carries, 200 yards, 5.9 ypc, 2 TD

@ DAL- Cowboys win 20-8 w/o Plax
Eli Manning- 18-35, 191 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT
Running game- 17 carries, 72 yards, 4.2 ypc

Look how much everything dropped without Burress.

Keep in mind we win games because we run the ball, control the clock, and play good defense. Now that we have our guys back and added extra, we will be fine.

Despite running the ball, having great defense and killing clock, you still need effective passing. Manning's completion % dropped something like 8% and his passer rating dropped 40ish points without Burress. Eli Manning without Burress was generally not an effective passer. It remains to be seen if he will be.

scottyboy
07-24-2009, 09:06 PM
here's my take if your calling the Giants over-rated:

if it's because we lost Ward. shut up. never speak of football again. Ward was an average back who was a product of our OL and system. Bradshaw, Ware and Brown are more talented backs and will probably produce more. Ward became from under-rated, to good, to ridiculously over-rated in like, 6 games. I like him, but his loss won't effect us at all.

Now the only reason for our downfall would be WR. We dont have a true #1 which upsets me, it truly does. I was a major advocate of dealing a 2nd or so for Ocho or trying to get braylon. BUT

we've had a whole season to adjust the playbook and Eli to work with these young guns. He had maybe a month, if that, to work with Hixon and Smith in primary roles, which in the NFL, is NOT a lot of time at all.

Oh, and we're getting our best defensive player and top 5 DE Osi Umenyiora back, in case any of you forgot.

Sniper
07-24-2009, 09:18 PM
here's my take if your calling the Giants over-rated:

if it's because we lost Ward. shut up. never speak of football again. Ward was an average back who was a product of our OL and system. Bradshaw, Ware and Brown are more talented backs and will probably produce more. Ward became from under-rated, to good, to ridiculously over-rated in like, 6 games. I like him, but his loss won't effect us at all.

I don't give a rat's ass about Ward. He's not good.

Now the only reason for our downfall would be WR. We dont have a true #1 which upsets me, it truly does. I was a major advocate of dealing a 2nd or so for Ocho or trying to get braylon. BUT we've had a whole season to adjust the playbook and Eli to work with these young guns. He had maybe a month, if that, to work with Hixon and Smith in primary roles, which in the NFL, is NOT a lot of time at all.

The drop in Manning's play over the last seven games doesn't concern you at all? After all, this is a guy who you're thinking of giving $50 million guaranteed to, and he couldn't do better than 3-4? To be fair, call it 3-3. The Minnesota game doesn't count. You had two games without an offensive TD, and another one where your lone offensive TD came in garbage time with the game already decided. That doesn't concern you guys? ********.

Oh, and we're getting our best defensive player and top 5 DE Osi Umenyiora back, in case any of you forgot.

Again, the defense and running game aren't/weren't the problem.

scottyboy
07-24-2009, 10:23 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about Ward. He's not good.



The drop in Manning's play over the last seven games doesn't concern you at all? After all, this is a guy who you're thinking of giving $50 million guaranteed to, and he couldn't do better than 3-4? To be fair, call it 3-3. The Minnesota game doesn't count. You had two games without an offensive TD, and another one where your lone offensive TD came in garbage time with the game already decided. That doesn't concern you guys? ********.



Again, the defense and running game aren't/weren't the problem.

1. I know, just addressing a generalization that's been put out there, not you.

2. It does concern me. It does a lot. BUT, i think we dont need him and a stud WR to be stellar. I think with a shorter passing game with more slants, curls and posts, Eli will be better. HOPEFULLY, Gillbride realizes this, and sticks with a power run game and a short-intermediate pass game. Again, i am scared, but we shouldn't be considered "over-rated".

3. I know, again, another generalization and people are forgetting about my Osi!

PoopSandwich
07-24-2009, 11:20 PM
I'm gonna go this way...

Overrated - Vikings/Bears... Vikings are a good team but they have had no QB stability in recent years and although Jesus Christ is the second coming of Adrian Peterson I'm not sure he can carry the team all the way and if he goes down the Vikings are absolutely ******.

As far as the Bears go... They will be good, possibly playoff good, but I think people may over-estimate the impact of Jay Cutler if they can't get him a wide receiver before the season starts. Marshall/Royal/Scheffler were all great targets for Cutler in Denver.

Underrated - Broncos... For the same reason that the Bears are overrated the Broncos may be underrated. The Broncos are a good offensive team with or without Jay Cutler. Kyle Orton put up some decent numbers and started to come into his own last year as a QB and now he gets the same guys that Cutler lost plus Knowshon Moreno who I expect to be the rookie of the year.

Either way, I expect the overrated teams to compete for the playoffs but I also expect the Broncos to be an annoyance to the Chargers in the West... I expect SD to win the west but I could see the Broncos going 7-9 or 8-8 and playing the Chargers close.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-25-2009, 08:46 AM
Doesn't it concern you a little bit that they weren't able to find a way to at least tweak the playbook? I mean, 3-4 in your last seven, including losing at home in the playoffs and never threatening to score in that game, can't be comforting.



This has nothing to do with video games. The Eagles, for one, showed that they were petrified of Plax. Jim Johnson said that in the first game, they doubled Plax around 70% of the time. That's quite a bit. Look at the difference it made.

@ Philly- Giants won 36-31 with Plax
Eli Manning- 17-31, 191 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT
Running game- 45 carries, 219 yards, 4.9 ypc, 2 TD

@ NY- Eagles won 20-14 w/o Plax
Eli Manning- 13-27, 123 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT (Garbage time TD with 0:15 left)
Running game- 24 carries, 88 yards, 3.7 ypc, 0 TD

@ NY- Eagles won 23-11 w/o Plax
Eli Manning- 15-29, 169 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT
Running game- 32 carries, 138 yards, 4.3 ypc

Look at the games against Dallas.

@ NY- Giants win 35-14 with Plax
Eli Manning- 16-27, 147 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT
Running game- 34 carries, 200 yards, 5.9 ypc, 2 TD

@ DAL- Cowboys win 20-8 w/o Plax
Eli Manning- 18-35, 191 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT
Running game- 17 carries, 72 yards, 4.2 ypc

Look how much everything dropped without Burress.



Despite running the ball, having great defense and killing clock, you still need effective passing. Manning's completion % dropped something like 8% and his passer rating dropped 40ish points without Burress. Eli Manning without Burress was generally not an effective passer. It remains to be seen if he will be.




It doesn't concern me that they couldn't tweak the playbook, because I coached, and I know during the season, you have no time and this is at the D3 level. Imagine the NFL level??? It's very, very hard! Why? Because when you adjust passing plays you have to adjust:

1. Protections
2. WRs routes and Depths
3. RB Routes and depths
4. TE routes and Depths
5. # of drop steps for the QB ( 1, 3, 5, or 7)
6. Progressions and reads for the QB
7. Hot routes and what not.
8. Indicate choice or option routes for CB technique AND/OR Coverage


This happens all for 1 play! Then during the week when the hell do you have time to practice this? Have you been to a NFL practice? It's very, very efficient, and fast paced. Once the airhorn blows, you go to your next period! You are not wasting time with anything. If it was training camp you have an install period, but during the season, no way in hell, are you going to sit and practice and install stuff to the degree we are talking about.

Of course 3-4 isn't an ideal record, but anyone around football knows if your passing game is centered around X wr, with Plax's skill set, and then that WR is done, you can't stick another WR in there with plays designed for Plax's skill set and expect to win. That's the media and avg. fan need to understand! That's where you are getting the media and even our giants fans to some degree have a knee jerk reaction to all this.

Now... if Gilbride AND Coughlin do nothing and sit with the same plays then yes, I will be very, very, very angry and worried! But the fact we drafted Beckum and talked about adjusting the passing scheme doesn't worry me. I understand what went wrong and I understand the issues surrounding the situation. Therefore I am not worried 1 bit.

I think Manning will be fine because of the stuff i listed above. When you take away someone whose passing plays all start with Burress and his skill set, and stick him with Hixon who is no Burress, then you're in trouble. I would be very surprised if Manning was successful throwing to the other WRs in a scheme that was centered around Burress.

I expect a drop in stats and that will effect the win/loss column.

Seasonticketholder
07-25-2009, 10:08 AM
I think the Eagles are being overrated quite a bit. I think they should be a solid football team, and one of the better teams in the NFC South. But I think the addition of Jason Peters has been overrated. As good as Peters can be at times, he was below average last year. He can try to assign some of the sacks he has been credited with giving up to others. But when I watched him last season, he was repeatedly beat off the edge and looked very slow in the running game. He was certainly not the force we all saw in 2007. I think he can rebound and play comptently. But will he become the dominant force he was in 2007? Remains to be seen.

The loss of Brian Dawkins will hurt from a leadership standpoint. I think Demps, and the addition of Sean Jones will allow for the Eagles to continue to play well on defense. But Dawkins was the emotional leader of the defense, and his energy will be missed.

McNabb is always a question mark. Will he play like a top five QB or be erratic? The addition of Maclin could help but I think he will impact special teams more this year than the passing game. Westbrook's injury concerns also cannot be overlooked when judging the Eagles.

I know some people are also pointing to the loss of Jim Johnson. I actually like Sean McDermott. I had him as one of the top guys that I wanted for the open DC position for my team. I like the guy we chose better. But I think McDermott is an up and coming defensive mind who has years of experience working under Johnson. I think he'll bring Johnson's intensity to the game, and should also be able to recapitulate his scheme quite well. Where I do think he might struggle is having Johnson's wisdom to make the right call in certain situations. But I expect him to grow in this regard with experience.

Seasonticketholder
07-25-2009, 10:08 AM
Not trying to sound like an asshole, but every year the saints have a new cornerback or new linebacker or several new draft picks or a new coach who's going to change things.

I'll agree a lot of pieces of the puzzle have been added, largely due to the previous years drafting and signing so I expect an improvement, but I don't think you can simply be given benefit of the doubt, due to the track record.



A few years ago Tom Brady never threw more than 28 touchdowns, DeAngelo Williams never had more than 500 yards and Jay Cutler was a bronco.

We american football dude.

Keep in mind last year the Carolina backfield as a unit produced over 5 yards per carry...

Carolina line ranked first in both conversions on short yardage running plays with a 79 percent conversion rate and in percentage of yardage gained beyond 10 yards. In other words even in obvious running situations 4/5 times the Panthers converted and more often than anyone in the league one of the backs popped a run for more than 10 yards.

This is with the starting offensive line only having 7 games as a complete unit.

Behind Otah a rookie there was a DVOA average of 4.6ypc off right tackle.

Their sacks allowed was good enough for 9th in the league.

With a great offensive line and running game, not to mention a top 5 receiver and solid defense it's hard to see Carolina having a losing season.

So, if I am reading this right, you are suggesting that *** Ork Wang that track record matters with the Saints but, at the same time, are saying that track record should not matter with the Panthers? I think both teams have to figure out if they can get beyond their history.

The Saints must prove that the new additions on defense along with the presence of Gregg Williams can finally get them over the hump. My belief is that it will. If that defense is "only" marginally improved, they are a likely playoff team. For all their poor defense, they lost 6 games by a total of 18 points, and in two of those games they had missed FGs at the end, which cost them a victory. So any improvement on defense, and better play from the special teams (which they had under Hartley), should put them in position to challenge for the NFC South. That said, their schedule is daunting, and they won't have the benefit of having their starting ends for the first four weeks. The good thing is that they do have viable depth at DE, and the benefit of playing a manageable schedule for the first four weeks. They could very well walk away 3-1 going into the bye week when Will Smith and Charles Grant will return from their suspensions. I think outside of Jonathan Vilma, their linebackers are at best solid, more likely subpar. They have some young guys that they should be anxious to give a shot at cracking the starting lineup to. Guys like Jonathan Casillas, Jo Lonn Dunbar and Anthony Waters might prove more athletic in Gregg Williams' blitzing style of defense than Scott Shanle and Scott Fujita. But even with subpar backs, the team's biggest achilles heel has been their pass defense. They got to the NFC championship with Fred Thomas as a starting corner and Josh Bullocks/Jay Bellamy/Omar Stoutmire as their safeties. To take it a step further, Brian Young was their starting 3-tech. Now, they have Sedrick Ellis in his position, and have added Malcolm Jenkins, Darren Sharper, Jabari Greer and Tracy Porter (who played very well as a rookie). So, you have to think that if Williams can get this group clicking early, they can be very successful. On paper, they do look good and as though they will be a contender. Of course, the game is played on the field--a place where the Saints have found ways to underachieve the last couple of seasons (hough in their defense they were injury-riddled last year).

The Panthers must prove they can have back-to-back winning seasons, less they become the new Atlanta Falcons. In their favor, they have 21 starters returning. Of course, they have brought as many starters back in years' past and still found having success in back-to-back seasons daunting. It is up to John Fox to motivate these guys. But I think that while they have solid starting lineups, a large part of their issues are depth as it is for most teams. This past season, Carolina was pretty much injury-free. I hope they can continue to have that fate though we know in this business that is not always realistic. The other question marks are at QB. What Jake Delhomme will we get? There is the guy who can manage games for you as long as you are running the football instead of depending on him to win games. On the other hand, there is the guy who can be erratic, sometimes even when the Panthers are winning. The offensive line is stout but outside of Duke Robinson, there are some depth issues that could haunt the Panthers should one of its starting linemen go down with a significant injury. Finally, can Richard Marshall replace Ken Lucas? I believe he can and will. He's scrappy, and, to me, has been one of the better nickel cornerbacks in the league. My concern, however, is whether or not Sherrod Martin can replace Marshall. I know that John Fox will have him prepared. But I do not know if it will be enough in year one to make a seamless transition from Lucas to Marshall and from Marshall to Martin. In a league where pass happy offenses dictate running nickel coverages 60% of the game, rookie mistakes or, worse, plain poor play from Martin could hurt the Panthers chances, especially against such a tough schedule. Oh, and I did not even mention Ron Meeks who will run a similar defense to what the Panthers ran last year despite being a recent Tampa-2 disciple. How will the transition look? Remains to be seen but history has to be weighted with deference given these question marks.

sweetness34
07-25-2009, 11:16 AM
As far as the Bears go... They will be good, possibly playoff good, but I think people may over-estimate the impact of Jay Cutler if they can't get him a wide receiver before the season starts. Marshall/Royal/Scheffler were all great targets for Cutler in Denver.

I think people forget that Matt Forte and Greg Olsen are on the team as well, two dynamic players that will help Cutler out. He may not have elite WR targets but he does have talent around him that people are overlooking.

Hines
07-25-2009, 11:37 AM
I think the Eagles are being overrated quite a bit. I think they should be a solid football team, and one of the better teams in the NFC South. But I think the addition of Jason Peters has been overrated. As good as Peters can be at times, he was below average last year. He can try to assign some of the sacks he has been credited with giving up to others. But when I watched him last season, he was repeatedly beat off the edge and looked very slow in the running game. He was certainly not the force we all saw in 2007. I think he can rebound and play comptently. But will he become the dominant force he was in 2007? Remains to be seen.

The loss of Brian Dawkins will hurt from a leadership standpoint. I think Demps, and the addition of Sean Jones will allow for the Eagles to continue to play well on defense. But Dawkins was the emotional leader of the defense, and his energy will be missed.

McNabb is always a question mark. Will he play like a top five QB or be erratic? The addition of Maclin could help but I think he will impact special teams more this year than the passing game. Westbrook's injury concerns also cannot be overlooked when judging the Eagles.

I know some people are also pointing to the loss of Jim Johnson. I actually like Sean McDermott. I had him as one of the top guys that I wanted for the open DC position for my team. I like the guy we chose better. But I think McDermott is an up and coming defensive mind who has years of experience working under Johnson. I think he'll bring Johnson's intensity to the game, and should also be able to recapitulate his scheme quite well. Where I do think he might struggle is having Johnson's wisdom to make the right call in certain situations. But I expect him to grow in this regard with experience.

So, if I am reading this right, you are suggesting that *** Ork Wang that track record matters with the Saints but, at the same time, are saying that track record should not matter with the Panthers? I think both teams have to figure out if they can get beyond their history.

The Saints must prove that the new additions on defense along with the presence of Gregg Williams can finally get them over the hump. My belief is that it will. If that defense is "only" marginally improved, they are a likely playoff team. For all their poor defense, they lost 6 games by a total of 18 points, and in two of those games they had missed FGs at the end, which cost them a victory. So any improvement on defense, and better play from the special teams (which they had under Hartley), should put them in position to challenge for the NFC South. That said, their schedule is daunting, and they won't have the benefit of having their starting ends for the first four weeks. The good thing is that they do have viable depth at DE, and the benefit of playing a manageable schedule for the first four weeks. They could very well walk away 3-1 going into the bye week when Will Smith and Charles Grant will return from their suspensions. I think outside of Jonathan Vilma, their linebackers are at best solid, more likely subpar. They have some young guys that they should be anxious to give a shot at cracking the starting lineup to. Guys like Jonathan Casillas, Jo Lonn Dunbar and Anthony Waters might prove more athletic in Gregg Williams' blitzing style of defense than Scott Shanle and Scott Fujita. But even with subpar backs, the team's biggest achilles heel has been their pass defense. They got to the NFC championship with Fred Thomas as a starting corner and Josh Bullocks/Jay Bellamy/Omar Stoutmire as their safeties. To take it a step further, Brian Young was their starting 3-tech. Now, they have Sedrick Ellis in his position, and have added Malcolm Jenkins, Darren Sharper, Jabari Greer and Tracy Porter (who played very well as a rookie). So, you have to think that if Williams can get this group clicking early, they can be very successful. On paper, they do look good and as though they will be a contender. Of course, the game is played on the field--a place where the Saints have found ways to underachieve the last couple of seasons (hough in their defense they were injury-riddled last year).

The Panthers must prove they can have back-to-back winning seasons, less they become the new Atlanta Falcons. In their favor, they have 21 starters returning. Of course, they have brought as many starters back in years' past and still found having success in back-to-back seasons daunting. It is up to John Fox to motivate these guys. But I think that while they have solid starting lineups, a large part of their issues are depth as it is for most teams. This past season, Carolina was pretty much injury-free. I hope they can continue to have that fate though we know in this business that is not always realistic. The other question marks are at QB. What Jake Delhomme will we get? There is the guy who can manage games for you as long as you are running the football instead of depending on him to win games. On the other hand, there is the guy who can be erratic, sometimes even when the Panthers are winning. The offensive line is stout but outside of Duke Robinson, there are some depth issues that could haunt the Panthers should one of its starting linemen go down with a significant injury. Finally, can Richard Marshall replace Ken Lucas? I believe he can and will. He's scrappy, and, to me, has been one of the better nickel cornerbacks in the league. My concern, however, is whether or not Sherrod Martin can replace Marshall. I know that John Fox will have him prepared. But I do not know if it will be enough in year one to make a seamless transition from Lucas to Marshall and from Marshall to Martin. In a league where pass happy offenses dictate running nickel coverages 60% of the game, rookie mistakes or, worse, plain poor play from Martin could hurt the Panthers chances, especially against such a tough schedule. Oh, and I did not even mention Ron Meeks who will run a similar defense to what the Panthers ran last year despite being a recent Tampa-2 disciple. How will the transition look? Remains to be seen but history has to be weighted with deference given these question marks.

I stopped reading once you said the Eagles are in the NFC South.


As for overrated? I say the Dolphins and the Ravens.

gpngc
07-25-2009, 11:47 AM
Ravens.

Just look at Flacco's #s.

Nalej
07-25-2009, 04:04 PM
I'ma big Pats fan but I say the Patriots.
I won't feel good until I see Brady on Week 1 do great.
That ACL is no joke and regardless of reports- I need to see to believe.
I've followed the Pats long enough to know that 95% of the things they say are BS.

BlindSite
07-26-2009, 04:40 AM
So, if I am reading this right, you are suggesting that *** Ork Wang that track record matters with the Saints but, at the same time, are saying that track record should not matter with the Panthers? I think both teams have to figure out if they can get beyond their history.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that I was saying track record gives the Panthers the highest likelihood of having a winning season and that the unexpected should be expected in the NFL.

Yeah the Saints could turn it around, but for 5 years now it's been everyone's big offseason prediction and for 5 years it's been a flop.


The Saints must prove that the new additions on defense along with the presence of Gregg Williams can finally get them over the hump. My belief is that it will. If that defense is "only" marginally improved, they are a likely playoff team. For all their poor defense, they lost 6 games by a total of 18 points, and in two of those games they had missed FGs at the end, which cost them a victory. So any improvement on defense, and better play from the special teams (which they had under Hartley), should put them in position to challenge for the NFC South. That said, their schedule is daunting, and they won't have the benefit of having their starting ends for the first four weeks. The good thing is that they do have viable depth at DE, and the benefit of playing a manageable schedule for the first four weeks. They could very well walk away 3-1 going into the bye week when Will Smith and Charles Grant will return from their suspensions. I think outside of Jonathan Vilma, their linebackers are at best solid, more likely subpar. They have some young guys that they should be anxious to give a shot at cracking the starting lineup to. Guys like Jonathan Casillas, Jo Lonn Dunbar and Anthony Waters might prove more athletic in Gregg Williams' blitzing style of defense than Scott Shanle and Scott Fujita. But even with subpar backs, the team's biggest achilles heel has been their pass defense. They got to the NFC championship with Fred Thomas as a starting corner and Josh Bullocks/Jay Bellamy/Omar Stoutmire as their safeties. To take it a step further, Brian Young was their starting 3-tech. Now, they have Sedrick Ellis in his position, and have added Malcolm Jenkins, Darren Sharper, Jabari Greer and Tracy Porter (who played very well as a rookie). So, you have to think that if Williams can get this group clicking early, they can be very successful. On paper, they do look good and as though they will be a contender. Of course, the game is played on the field--a place where the Saints have found ways to underachieve the last couple of seasons (hough in their defense they were injury-riddled last year).

So what you're saying is you've got a bunch of guys who've been hurt a lot in the past who're young and inexperienced or over the hill under a new D coord.

Try using the ENTER key. I can't read much more than a few lines of yours without getting a headache.


The Panthers must prove they can have back-to-back winning seasons, less they become the new Atlanta Falcons. In their favor, they have 21 starters returning. Of course, they have brought as many starters back in years' past Wrong

and still found having success in back-to-back seasons daunting Every team in the NFL finds it daunting.

It is up to John Fox to motivate these guys. He's known for being a motivator

But I think that while they have solid starting lineups, a large part of their issues are depth as it is for most teams. This past season, Carolina was pretty much injury-free. Massive issues on the offensive line only 7 games with all 5 starters on the field, there were injuries at cornerback, Beason played something like 4 games with a torn shoulder and the defensive tackle position was decimated. There were massive injuries. The team overcame.

I hope they can continue to have that fate though we know in this business that is not always realistic. The other question marks are at QB. What Jake Delhomme will we get? There is the guy who can manage games for you as long as you are running the football instead of depending on him to win games. On the other hand, there is the guy who can be erratic, sometimes even when the Panthers are winning. His stats are bad because it's a run first offense and when he is passing it's generally down field deep where the windows are smaller and the likelihood of interceptions is higher. He had one meltdown last year, the rest of the time he was a good QB, the team didn't go 12-4 because Delhomme got sick. Before this Arizona game he was known for having a knack for comebacks and in the post season. You don't throw out a decent career for one game. Sure he's up and down, but he's not a detriment for the team by any means.

The offensive line is stout but outside of Duke Robinson, there are some depth issues that could haunt the Panthers should one of its starting linemen go down with a significant injury. Wharton can play either tackle spot as can Otah and Gross, Vincent can play either guard spot and the team is bringing in Cadogan as well, there's depth and the line is flexible, we only got rid for 2 guys from the backup positions in Bridges for off field stuff and Hangartner who was a huge loss.

Finally, can Richard Marshall replace Ken Lucas? I believe he can and will. He's scrappy, and, to me, has been one of the better nickel cornerbacks in the league. My concern, however, is whether or not Sherrod Martin can replace Marshall. I know that John Fox will have him prepared. But I do not know if it will be enough in year one to make a seamless transition from Lucas to Marshall and from Marshall to Martin. In a league where pass happy offenses dictate running nickel coverages 60% of the game, rookie mistakes or, worse, plain poor play from Martin could hurt the Panthers chances, especially against such a tough schedule. Oh, and I did not even mention Ron Meeks who will run a similar defense to what the Panthers ran last year despite being a recent Tampa-2 disciple. How will the transition look? Remains to be seen but history has to be weighted with deference given these question marks. The team has light weight, fast swarming linebackers, three defensive ends who fit in Meek's system and cornerbacks and safeties with experience in the system... It won't be an issue.

Harris and Godfrey have been in a cover 2 before, Martin played in one in college as did CJ Wilson who will see time at Nickel, the linebackers are one of the best groups in the NFL and Meeks is a master at getting good play from less than stellar players, imagine what he can do with this defense which is staffed with solid contributors.

You're saying question marks abound, but they're the same questions people had last year, which were answered resoundingly. 12-4... That doesn't go away because the team's QB has one bad game, a D Coord universally hated by the fans and a few backups leave.

Gay Ork Wang
07-26-2009, 05:49 AM
Yeah the Saints could turn it around, but for 5 years now it's been everyone's big offseason prediction and for 5 years it's been a flop.


Besides the one time they made it to the NFCC

bearsfan_51
07-26-2009, 06:59 AM
As far as the Bears go... They will be good, possibly playoff good, but I think people may over-estimate the impact of Jay Cutler if they can't get him a wide receiver before the season starts. Marshall/Royal/Scheffler were all great targets for Cutler in Denver.
I highly doubt Royal and Scheffler will be much of anything without Cutler. Marshall is a great talent no doubt.

As for overrated, I'll go with the Packers. Foxsports has them ranked as the 9th best team in the league, and the Bears as the 20th best team in the league. That's the dumbest ******* thing I've heard in a long time.

ricowboy
07-26-2009, 11:59 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the Ravens this season. They lost a lot, but had players that can step in. I'm just not sure those players can play like the players that left. Rex Ryan is also a top 3 DC in the NFL.

Patriots are being SOO overrated. Its really annoying. People expect Tom Brady to comeback from his torn ACL like nothing happened, but I believe its going to effect his play next season.

Clearly you don't like NE....That is fine....Overrated is a stretch. They are one of ther top teams this year. They have the best head coach in the game. Brady doesn't have to carry this team.....They were talented enough to get 10 wins without him last year......With brady you figure they win a minimum of 11 games......Actually I think they will be 12-4 or 13-3......He doesn't have to be a stud for the Pats to win!

Mr. Stiller
07-26-2009, 01:13 PM
Clearly you don't like NE....That is fine....Overrated is a stretch. They are one of ther top teams this year. They have the best head coach in the game. Brady doesn't have to carry this team.....They were talented enough to get 10 wins without him last year......With brady you figure they win a minimum of 11 games......Actually I think they will be 12-4 or 13-3......He doesn't have to be a stud for the Pats to win!

My concern with the Patriots is the loss of Vrabel. He was never an "Amazing" player, but he could play all 4 LB positions and had a knack for causing several teams issues.

I think their pass rush is going to be a bit stymied especially if Adalius Thomas doesn't stay healthy... again.

Brothgar
07-26-2009, 01:30 PM
The saints on this board are being given more props than any other team in the south and unjustifiably so. They've been expected to fire for a while now since their NFCCG appearance and are yet to do so.

There's no reason to expect Carolina or Atlanta to fall off. The Saints are still third in the division and Carolina and Atlanta are still two of the top teams in the NFC.

I think this guy disagrees.

Idqa_U9lj0o

MidwayMonster31
07-26-2009, 02:27 PM
The reason that I thin Atlanta falls off is due to their schedule and teams adjusting to Ryan. They're not playing Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland and Kansas City this year. Instead, they have to play the Giants, Eagles and the Patriots. Ryan had a bad December, but Gonzalez should help.
I am staying away from Turner this year in fantasy football, because of his high workload the year before and what I said before about their schedule. I don't think the Falcons are overrated, but I think they finish 8-8.

d34ng3l021
07-26-2009, 04:43 PM
The reason that I thin Atlanta falls off is due to their schedule and teams adjusting to Ryan. They're not playing Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland and Kansas City this year. Instead, they have to play the Giants, Eagles and the Patriots. Ryan had a bad December, but Gonzalez should help.
I am staying away from Turner this year in fantasy football, because of his high workload the year before and what I said before about their schedule. I don't think the Falcons are overrated, but I think they finish 8-8.

I think people are too concerned about the harder SOS for the Falcons. Yes, the Falcons played a lot of bad teams last year, but it was through no fault of their own. Once given the easy schedule, the Falcons did what any other good team would have done: stomp on the bad teams. The Falcons were a combined 255-175 in 9 games against teams 8-8 or worse (average score: 28.3 to 19.4) and went 7-2, losing games in New Orleans and against the Broncos (both 8-8).

Even against the harder teams in the NFL, the Falcons held their own for the most part after disasters in Tampa Bay and Carolina in week 2 and 4, which can almost be expected. The Falcons were a young team and their first 2 road games were against division rivals with tough, tough defenses(despite that though, the Falcons were within 1 possession in the 4th for both games). Look at the other 3 losses.

Eagles in Philly. Ryan lead the Falcons to a 4th quarter, 84 yard drive that included a 4th and 5 conversion to bring the score within 6. The results of the 5 previous Falcon drives before that one? 4 punts and 1 interception. On the opposing possession, the Falcons defense got the ball back for the offense with about 2:15 on the clock remaining when the 'muffed' punt call happened. The PR closed in on the ball but backed away without actually touching the ball. The refs called it a fumble and Mike Smith was either out of timeouts or challenges and since it wasn't under 2:00 (15 ******* seconds off), it could not be reviewed. The Falcons let up and the Eagles scored another go ahead TD. I am not saying that the Falcons would have won that game (though I am pretty convinced Ryan could have led a GW drive), but the Falcons should have had the ball, while down by 6, with 2:00 to go in Philly. Not bad for a team predicted to get the #1 overall pick against the team that went to the NFCCG.

Broncos in Atlanta. A close game throughout, but a 4th quarter turnover by Ryan was difficult to overcome. Cutler found a receiver for a GW TD with around 7 minutes to go for a 24-20 lead. On the last possession for the Falcons, the Falcons found themselves on a 3rd and 18 when Ryan threw a perfect bomb to Roddy White for the TD, but the ball literally bounced right off of White's hands. Had that been a catch, the Falcons would have been up by 3 with 1:00 to go.

Saints in New Orleans. An even closer game throughout, this game featured many lead changes but the Falcons could not overcome the 90+ yard kickoff return (a TD following that) in the 4th quarter. After punting on a decisive 4th and 5, the Falcons defense couldn't get a stop and the Falcons lost 24-29.

Playoff Cards in Arizona. After being down 14-3 and then 30-17, the Falcons finally showed life when they drove 60 yards in 9 plays to score a TD in the 4th quarter. The Cardinals got the ball back with about 3:00 to go and the defense forces them into a 3rd and 16 situation with 2:30 to go. On the 3rd down play, Brooking bites on the underneath route and the Cardinals convert a ******* 3rd and 16 and the Falcons offense doesn't get a chance to see the ball again.

Now, it may seem as if I am just spewing out a bunch of excuses for the Falcons' losses, but that isn't the point. I am just trying to point out that even in the Falcons' losses, they showed a great amount of team chemistry and talent by never being out of a game against a good opponent. A correct call or a defensive stop coupled with an even better offense could make all the difference. [sorry for the long post. i just needed to get a lot of falcons talk out]

BlindSite
07-26-2009, 04:46 PM
Besides the one time they made it to the NFCC

Are you going to just continue to repeat what I've said?

Gay Ork Wang
07-26-2009, 07:58 PM
Are you going to just continue to repeat what I've said?
well in the last five years they made it into the NFCC once, its not like the Browns or something that havent done anything in forever

Mr.Regular
07-26-2009, 08:20 PM
The Eagles.
They're being talked about as one of the Super Bowl favourites, and I don't see it.
They are breaking in new players (and Jason Peters is extremely overrated IMO) in new positions on their OLine.
Westbrook is another year older and he really is the heart and soul of the offense.
They drafted Maclin, but I'm not sure he's a true impact player right away and he doesn't compliment Jackson well IMO.
Jim Johnson is battling cancer.
They lost their defensive, and arguable, team leader in Brian Dawkins.
They play in a very, very good division.

I do think they are a very good team and as of now Id bet on them making the playoffs, but the way they`re being hyped up makes it look like they are much better than they really are IMO.

Sniper
07-26-2009, 08:40 PM
They are breaking in new players (and Jason Peters is extremely overrated IMO) in new positions on their OLine.

Peters is better than Tra Thomas. Shawn Andrews is better than Jon Runyan. Stacy Andrews is better than Max Jean-Gilles.

Westbrook is another year older and he really is the heart and soul of the offense.

Does that mean his talent dropped?

They drafted Maclin, but I'm not sure he's a true impact player right away and he doesn't compliment Jackson well IMO.

Yet everyone's still riding the Giants' nuts and they're relying on rookie wideouts. Jackson, Curtis (as a #2) and Avant are still a pretty solid trio, regardless of Maclin's contributions. McNabb has proven that he doesn't need a #1 receiver to be efficient. He does need one to be Super Bowl-bound, though.

Jim Johnson is battling cancer.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2009/6/25/924198/a-look-at-past-jim-johnson-proteges

A look at past Jim Johnson proteges as defensive coordinators. It's an excellent track record.

They lost their defensive, and arguable, team leader in Brian Dawkins.

Legitimate concern.

I do think they are a very good team and as of now Id bet on them making the playoffs, but the way they`re being hyped up makes it look like they are much better than they really are IMO.

Every NFC contender has a glaring issue or two.

yo123
07-26-2009, 08:58 PM
Ravens.

Just look at Flacco's #s.



What am I supposed to be looking at?

Bigburt63
07-26-2009, 09:12 PM
My concern with the Patriots is the loss of Vrabel. He was never an "Amazing" player, but he could play all 4 LB positions and had a knack for causing several teams issues.

I think their pass rush is going to be a bit stymied especially if Adalius Thomas doesn't stay healthy... again.

Losing Vrable does hurt, but he was very clearly regressing from a physical standpoint in his last few years. He was still a very smart player, and a big locker room presence, so his departure will be felt, but not as much as some are making it out to be IMO. The pass rush was very weak last year with him in there and Thomas hurt, so why not give the younger more athletic OLB's on the roster a shot? He will be missed at points however.

Bigburt63
07-26-2009, 09:17 PM
Peters is better than Tra Thomas. Shawn Andrews is better than Jon Runyan. Stacy Andrews is better than Max Jean-Gilles.

To be fair it can take just one offensive lineman some time to adjust to new linemates, nevermind 3 all at once, even if they are better than their predecessors.

Does that mean his talent dropped?

No, but when he already has injury concerns, getting older is never a good thing in that regard. Although I hope he stays healthy because I like him, and he needs to produce for my fantasy team :)



I don't think the eagles are overrated, and agree with you on the WR's thing. I just feel that the OL and Westbrook concerns are real.

Dam8610
07-26-2009, 09:50 PM
In general:

Houston Texans - Is it just me, or are the Texans everyone's sleeper pick every year? I'll admit the Texans have a lot of talent, but they're not a good team in the trenches, their QB is injury prone, and they just traded away their veteran backup who could at least keep them in games. Most of their success over the past few seasons has come over their last few games of the season, which might be why everyone ends up picking them as a sleeper team every year, I really question if they ever got into a situation where they played a high stakes game if they'd be able to come out on top, since they've never really been faced with the situation.

On this board:

Denver Broncos - Yes, the Broncos went 8-8 and almost made the playoffs last year, but the sole reason for that now plays for the Chicago Bears. Their defense was atrocious, their running game was merely average, and if you take a look at the stat sheets, you can pretty much tell whether the Broncos won or lost based on the type of game Jay Cutler had last year. Personally, I don't fault Cutler for the bad games he had, as he had to deal with the dual pressures of having a terrible defense and a minimal threat in the running game, compare his season last year to Peyton Manning's 2001 or Carson Palmer's 2007, when both dealt with similar circumstances, and you'll see that Cutler's season was quite impressive considering the circumstances. Now, they need Kyle Orton to replace Cutler, which I don't think is possible, and they need the defensive changes they've made to not hurt their performance this season, which almost never happens in a scheme transition. I could easily see this team as a 3-13 team, and I really can't see them being any better than 6-10. The West will go to the Chargers almost by default this season.

BlindSite
07-27-2009, 02:59 AM
well in the last five years they made it into the NFCC once, its not like the Browns or something that havent done anything in forever

The Panthers, Buccs and Falcons have had better years more recently, Carolina is coming off their best regular season as a franchise ever... Carolina and Atlanta are top dogs in the division and there's no real way to argue around it.

Gay Ork Wang
07-27-2009, 03:57 AM
The Panthers, Buccs and Falcons have had better years more recently, Carolina is coming off their best regular season as a franchise ever... Carolina and Atlanta are top dogs in the division and there's no real way to argue around it.
im not saying they arent, but every year the NFC South is different. The team that finishes last made the playoffs for like 5 years now.

to say that the Saints havent done anything the last 5 years is just wrong

Shane P. Hallam
07-27-2009, 01:04 PM
Panthers and Eagles.

d34ng3l021
07-27-2009, 01:53 PM
im not saying they arent, but every year the NFC South is different. The team that finishes last made the playoffs for like 5 years now.

to say that the Saints havent done anything the last 5 years is just wrong

Compared to the hype they receive every year, they might as well have done nothing. After a surprise 06 season where teams had trouble facing Bush, Colston, and Brees, the Saints have been picked as division winners and possible SB favorites every year but failed to deliver. Forget winning the division or making the SB, they haven't been close to a playoff birth since then. NFCCG to 7-9 to 8-8 (everyone talks about how easy the South's schedule was last year...the Saints couldn't crack .500 playing nearly the same schedule as the Falcons).

Now of course, every team has the right to be optimistic for the upcoming season, especially the Saints because of the changes made on the defensive side of the ball, but I think people need to wait before crowning the Saints as division champs. I, for one, would like to see how that defense plays together; new DC, players returning from injury, and new players will take some time to adjust to. Look at the opposite of that at the Carolina Panthers; the dominant regular season Panthers return 21 of 22 starters for the type of stability needed for consistent playoff births. The Falcons offense (#6 YPG #10 PPG) returns 9 of 11 of the starters from last year, with the 2 replacements being a healthy Sam Baker for the season and some guy named Tony Gonzalez. The defense is replacing 5 starters, which will be difficult, but is making improvement in the right direction.

I think people are really sleeping on the Panthers for this upcoming season.

ricowboy
07-27-2009, 04:58 PM
Peters is better than Tra Thomas. Shawn Andrews is better than Jon Runyan. Stacy Andrews is better than Max Jean-Gilles.



Does that mean his talent dropped?



Yet everyone's still riding the Giants' nuts and they're relying on rookie wideouts. Jackson, Curtis (as a #2) and Avant are still a pretty solid trio, regardless of Maclin's contributions. McNabb has proven that he doesn't need a #1 receiver to be efficient. He does need one to be Super Bowl-bound, though.



http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2009/6/25/924198/a-look-at-past-jim-johnson-proteges

A look at past Jim Johnson proteges as defensive coordinators. It's an excellent track record.



Legitimate concern.



Every NFC contender has a glaring issue or two.

The only statement you made that is 100% correct is that every NFC contender has questions....Eagels are not overrated......They do have very legitimate concerns that you tried to pass off as none issues. The AFC is easy to predicate......The NFC is open to whomever wants it more!

RCAChainGang
07-29-2009, 01:02 PM
How come no one is mentioning Indianapolis with the loss of Dungy? Sure, their offense remains potent, but losing their unifying force could prove problematic. Their RB situation still appears unsettled, and is the D good enough and healthy enough to finish? The rest of the division isn't getting worse... I'll go with the Colts.

First of all bsaza I just want to say I respect your opinion, but I just thought I might give you a little rebuke. The Colts in my opinion are underrated. I do understand where you are coming from, but please hear me out.

Coaching staff lost has been replaced with upcoming coaches who have been under Dungy so not a whole lot will change.

To be completely honest with you I think our RB situation is fantastic. We have Addai who is a pretty good runner when you have a healthy line. Addai wasn't the problem it was the O-line. Addai isn't the answer though. He is valuable as a pass blocker and a receiver out of the backfield and on stretch runs. Addai doesn't hit the hole as well as other exceptional runningbacks, but I believe Donald Brown can. DB is going to get carries this year and take the load off Addai and I think he is going to be better than Addai at running the ball. Also please don't forget Mike Hart who was injured last year and who will also give some fresh legs. Our RB situation is above average AT LEAST.

The defense has a lot of potential this year. I'm excited to see what they can do. Tim Jennings won't be drawing flags every other play, and our D-line is bulked up with Ed Johnson back and Fili Moala stepping in.

Gay Ork Wang
07-29-2009, 01:23 PM
if the Oline was the problem, u dont think it was a problem that the OL coach retired?

Dam8610
07-29-2009, 01:34 PM
if the Oline was the problem, u dont think it was a problem that the OL coach retired?

It would be...if he wasn't back as a "consultant" who does the same job as he did before. Same with Moore.

RCAChainGang
07-29-2009, 01:36 PM
if the Oline was the problem, u dont think it was a problem that the OL coach retired?

Well yes to an extent. I think Howard Mudd was very important, but as I said upcoming coaches are taking over roles. I am very confident in Pete Metzelaars (http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=coachbio&coach_id=28) (Howard Mudd's assistant) to keep the O-line on top of their game.

And Jeff Saturday is a huge leader and mentor to the younger lineman. So it was great to get him resigned.

SugarSean
01-10-2010, 10:16 AM
I don't think anybody is overrating them. They're projected to go anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7. They might be the most UNDERrated team this season.

Here's what I said about the Dallas Cowboys before the season and I got neg repped and the comment said, "That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read."

Wow.

Twiddler
01-10-2010, 10:20 AM
Here's what I said about the Dallas Cowboys before the season and I got neg repped and the comment said, "That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read."

Wow.

Want a cookie?

I hate when people bring stuff like this back just to show how they were right. Big whoop.

SugarSean
01-10-2010, 10:28 AM
Ok...kinda wasn't talkin to u dude. And if you can't/shouldn't do stuff like that then what the ****'s the point of having pre-season projections? What's the point of threads like this in the first place then? It's stupid to make predictions and then never revisit them. If you were right, it's not like u win an award or anything but if you were wrong then u should feel stupid as ****.

crossroads
01-10-2010, 10:43 AM
Ok...kinda wasn't talkin to u dude. And if you can't/shouldn't do stuff like that then what the ****'s the point of having pre-season projections? What's the point of threads like this in the first place then? It's stupid to make predictions and then never revisit them. If you were right, it's not like u win an award or anything but if you were wrong then u should feel stupid as ****.

The point is if you had been wrong about those predictions you wouldn't be bumping these threads to talk about how wrong you were. You're only bringing these threads up to go "see, look how right i was, you were all stoopidz" meanwhile I'm sure you made other predictions in other threads that were completely wrong, but you won't bother revisiting those.

SugarSean
01-10-2010, 10:52 AM
The point is if you had been wrong about those predictions you wouldn't be bumping these threads to talk about how wrong you were. You're only bringing these threads up to go "see, look how right i was, you were all stoopidz" meanwhile I'm sure you made other predictions in other threads that were completely wrong, but you won't bother revisiting those.

I see what you're saying but I explained in another thread that I saw (today) a bunch of negative rep I received in the preseason for writing stuff like this and I commented on it. I'm not gonna search to see if there was anything I was wrong about or if there was any other stuff I was right about. I just think it's ****** up that you can neg repped for having an opinion. An opinion that if these people knew anything about football should know is not so laughable that it deserves to be neg repped.

diesel
01-10-2010, 02:50 PM
Steelers. *****************

BroadwayJoe10
01-10-2010, 03:04 PM
The point is if you had been wrong about those predictions you wouldn't be bumping these threads to talk about how wrong you were. You're only bringing these threads up to go "see, look how right i was, you were all stoopidz" meanwhile I'm sure you made other predictions in other threads that were completely wrong, but you won't bother revisiting those.

This has been done for years on this board. People make predictions, in the prediction threads..go figure, and then at the end of the season, talk about their mistakes and what they got right. There's usually the annual "eat your crow" thread that is made. It is a pride thing, but than what is really the point of making a prediction thread if not to pat yourself on the back at the end...or hide your face in your hands hah?? It's not as if he is making useless threads about his predictions, just bumping an old thread...it will probably be filled with a half dozen pages after this. I always enjoy laughing at my absurd predictions early in the season, for as many as people get right, they get just as many wrong...it's how it is.


I also feel SS has a little extra incentive to bring it up, considering he was absolutely bashed for his statements earlier in the year, which turned out to be dead nuts accurate. And his statements weren't even that bold, they ranged from 10-6 being possibly considering overated to 9-7 being considered more on line...yet he was grossly insulted and "neg repped". I firmly believe everyone who neg repped him should eat crow and admit he was right...we'll see if that happens.

I'll give him his props, he was spot on with his assesment of Dallas' D...especially with the play of Spencer.

LonghornsLegend
01-10-2010, 03:13 PM
Well, the 1st page of this thread makes me :D

Basileus777
01-10-2010, 04:47 PM
The Giants were overrated, but everyone whiffed badly on the reasons why.

It shows how unpredictable the NFL is.

wogitalia
01-10-2010, 08:48 PM
I don't appear to have posted in this one, but the team that I most overrated turned out to be the Steelers this year.

No other team that I rated failed, Packers didn't win the division as I had predicted, but that was more with me underrating my Vikes than overrating the Packers.

Shiver
01-10-2010, 11:45 PM
The Giants were overrated, but everyone whiffed badly on the reasons why.

It shows how unpredictable the NFL is.

Manningham- Has done nothing so far.
Hixon- A good slot receiver, maybe a decent #2 if he hits his potential.
Smith- Third down guy.
Nicks- Hasn't played a down.
Barden- Hasn't played a down.
Tyree- Give me a break.

I firmly believe that Manning needs a #1. He's done nothing to dispel those thoughts.

Is this what you were referring to?

Monomach
01-10-2010, 11:49 PM
Peter King picked the Bears to go to the Super Bowl. lawl.

Basileus777
01-10-2010, 11:51 PM
Is this what you were referring to?

That and quotes like:

The running game's not the issue. The passing game is.

Defense wasn't the problem either. I'm not sold on the Giants. Yes, they can run the ball and play defense, but you do have to pass it occasionally. Show me who their #1 WR is. In that offense, you need one. They don't have it.

Those doubting the Giants mostly pointed to the WRs and no one really questioned whether they would be able to run the ball or play defense. And that's where they really failed. I thought the Giants might miss Spags, but I never expected their defense to be as bad as they were.

Sniper
01-11-2010, 06:39 AM
That and quotes like:





Those doubting the Giants mostly pointed to the WRs and no one really questioned whether they would be able to run the ball or play defense. And that's where they really failed. I thought the Giants might miss Spags, but I never expected their defense to be as bad as they were.

Aaaaaargh, I fails. :D

I did say the Giants wouldn't be as good as advertised, though. I'll give myself 50%.