PDA

View Full Version : Most likely worst to first


Bucs_Rule
09-09-2010, 11:49 AM
Washington and the Jags are the best teams, but they are in brutal divisions. Browns, Bills, Bucs and Lions are really bad with tough competition. The NFC West is the weakest but the Rams are so bad and have a rookie QB. The Chargers are the class of the AFC West. Missing 2 key players will really hurt. I'll go with the Chiefs, don't think it will happen but it is the best option.

Splat
09-09-2010, 12:09 PM
I don't think it will happen either but I went with the Chiefs as well just do to the Div's the other teams play in.

The NFC West is pretty wide open as well but I think the Rams are at best 3rd in the Div but more then likely last.

tjsunstein
09-09-2010, 12:11 PM
Washington has the best shot, imo.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
09-09-2010, 12:15 PM
StL & KC have the easiest divisions to try and finish first. All the other divisions would have to have a monumental collapse at the top for a team to go from worst to first. I don't believe any team will go worst to first this year.

A Perfect Score
09-09-2010, 12:15 PM
If I didnt love what the Falcons were doing so much, I would of went with the Bucs. But alas, I voted for the Chiefs due to my deep hatred for the other 3 teams in the division.

abaddon41_80
09-09-2010, 12:34 PM
Redskins because they improved a ton with the additions of McNabb and Shanahan. I don't think the other 7 even have a shot, tbh.

stephenson86
09-09-2010, 01:32 PM
KC and I reckon it is by a fair margin, I have not much faith in the Washington.

SenorGato
09-09-2010, 01:44 PM
The Chiefs or the Browns...neither will win their division but expect inspired football from both.

Haley and Mangini are two good coaches.

Splat
09-09-2010, 01:52 PM
I surprised so many people are picking the Redskins, I like what they have done this off season but their Div is tough.

yourfavestoner
09-09-2010, 01:59 PM
I surprised so many people are picking the Redskins, I like what they have done this off season but their Div is tough.

I think that division is incredibly overrated and won't send more than one team to the playoffs.

As it stands, none of the offensive lines in that division grade out any higher than slightly above average. If anything, I like Washington's line the most because of the Washington and Brown additions.

Washington's three biggest holes last year were quarterback, the o-line, and playcalling/management (especially in close games). They've upgraded all three of those things, substantially at that.

I know I quote Bill Simmons a lot, but I really think I share a brain with him. And what he says about Dallas in his first Picks column, I agree with completely.


REDSKINS (+3.5) over Cowboys
Let's end on a Cowboys rant. The Cowboys remind me of the Kardashians in that their strongest talent is a relentless ability to remain relevant. Much like the Kardashians successfully created the illusion that they should be famous, the Cowboys successfully created the illusion that they should be a Super Bowl contender. And they didn't even have to leak a sex tape to do it. You know what Dallas' record has been since 2000? 82-78. You know how many playoff games it has won over that stretch? One. That's right … one more playoff win than Buffalo and Detroit.
As with the Kardashians, it's all about the packaging. We consider Tony Romo an elite QB because he dates celebrities and puts up big fantasy numbers; so what if he freezes in big games? We consider Jerry Jones an elite owner because he splurged on a magnificent stadium and matched wits with Ari Gold; so what if he never built a Super Bowl team without Jimmy Johnson? Dez Bryant has been reinvented as the steal of the 2010 draft based on a bunch of preseason practices that nobody saw; so what if half the league passed on him because teams thought he was a head case? Most fans consider the Dallas offense as "elite" because it has a few high fantasy picks; so what if they don't have a single elite offensive lineman? Every Cowboys Super Bowl pick includes the caveat, "They're returning 20 of 22 starters from last year"; so what if it means they're returning 20 of the 22 starters the Vikings trounced in January by 31 points?
Even the Kardashians thing makes more sense to me. They learned all their tricks from Paris Hilton; there are three of them; they have a catchy name; they don't say anything controversial or incriminating; they only date celebrities, athletes and reality-TV-ready degenerates; and Kim (their fearless leader) is the perfect goddess for her time: a multi-new-media icon (Internet, reality TV and Us Weekly) with a definite hook (her butt), a tawdry past (her sex tape) that wasn't really all that tawdry (the camerawork was bad, and you could barely see anything) and no discernible talent whatsoever (which doesn't matter, because you don't need talent to be famous in 2010). That smoke-and-mirrors routine should work in pop culture. In football? No. And yet, somehow, the Dallas Cowboys have the fourth-best odds to win this year's Super Bowl (8-1). I give up.http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/100909

Plus, Wade Phillips is still their head coach and Jason Garrett is still calling plays. They have no identity on offense. They can't figure out if they're a running or throwing team. I just don't like the feeling they give off this year.

P-L
09-09-2010, 02:01 PM
I surprised so many people are picking the Redskins, I like what they have done this off season but their Div is tough.
I don't think they were as bad as their record last season and I think the NFC East in general is pretty overrated. No one in that division improved as much as they did and the other three teams have plenty of question marks themselves. I still don't think Washington wins the division, but I think they have the best shot.

nepg
09-09-2010, 02:06 PM
Didn't the Redskins go 0-6 in the NFC East? They made some moves, but are still the worst team in the division by a solid margin.

Smooth Criminal
09-09-2010, 02:06 PM
I don't think anyone will this year.

But if I had to pick, I like the Redskins. New coach, new QB, something might click.

I don't see much reason to hope for any other one of these teams to win a division.

Nikolas
09-09-2010, 02:07 PM
I don't think any of these teams will do it, but the only likely candidate is KC. If they can pull off an upset this weekend, then they have a chance.

abaddon41_80
09-09-2010, 02:30 PM
Didn't the Redskins go 0-6 in the NFC East? They made some moves, but are still the worst team in the division by a solid margin.

The margin is not as big as the differences for every other team that was last place last year and the first place teams.

Fat_Actor
09-09-2010, 03:34 PM
I think the buccaneers have the best chance.

CashmoneyDrew
09-09-2010, 03:51 PM
Chiefs got the best player ever so they win.

Rosebud
09-09-2010, 05:43 PM
I don't think they were as bad as their record last season and I think the NFC East in general is pretty overrated. No one in that division improved as much as they did and the other three teams have plenty of question marks themselves. I still don't think Washington wins the division, but I think they have the best shot.

Sorry about the poor grammar and typo's, I'm on my phone waiting for class.

Of course the Skins improved more than the Eagles or Cowboys. They were so much worse than everybody that making big progress was easiest. Sure they got a legit QB and have two tackles who can be really good, but they still have a major dearth of weapons and competent running backs. While defense is weak in the secondary and transitioning to a 3-4 with a defensively terrible HC.

They improved a lot but they're still well behind the giants and cowboys, who have more talent, depth, chemistry and experience together. They have the third best QB in the divison the worst weapons an OL that isn't going to dominate, the third best DL and fourth best pass rushers. The run D could end up the best in the division, but they're secondary looks like the worst in the division. They'll be a solid team that can beat any team if you look past them, but at their best thye just can't match the giants or cowboys at their best. They need one of the teams ahead of them to get wholes out by injuries, like the giants last year, and the other to collapse down the stretch, like the cowboys 2(?) years ago. They could make the wild card, but that might be even less likely.

umphrey
09-09-2010, 05:52 PM
If the Lions were in almost any other division I would have voted for them.

yourfavestoner
09-09-2010, 05:55 PM
Sorry about the poor grammar and typo's, I'm on my phone waiting for class.

Of course the Skins improved more than the Eagles or Cowboys. They were so much worse than everybody that making big progress was easiest. Sure they got a legit QB and have two tackles who can be really good, but they still have a major dearth of weapons and competent running backs. While defense is weak in the secondary and transitioning to a 3-4 with a defensively terrible HC.

They improved a lot but they're still well behind the giants and cowboys, who have more talent, depth, chemistry and experience together. They have the third best QB in the divison the worst weapons an OL that isn't going to dominate, the third best DL and fourth best pass rushers. The run D could end up the best in the division, but they're secondary looks like the worst in the division. They'll be a solid team that can beat any team if you look past them, but at their best thye just can't match the giants or cowboys at their best. They need one of the teams ahead of them to get wholes out by injuries, like the giants last year, and the other to collapse down the stretch, like the cowboys 2(?) years ago. They could make the wild card, but that might be even less likely.

This happens every year, though. Not necessarily to the Cowboys and Giants, respectively, but it seems like every year it's touted as the hardest division and then two teams either vastly underachieve or get wiped out by injuries.

I think we'll see an 11-5 division winner, two teams hovering around 8-8, and one whose season is a complete trainwreck.

FUNBUNCHER
09-09-2010, 06:27 PM
None of these teams IMO will win their division, but the Skins are the closest to doing it.

Teams knew last year that Washington really struggled to score 21 points per game, not so this season.

If Haynesworth is on the roster all season, their defense is going to pound on some teams.
D Mac has paired with a HC who's going to give him a true run game to play off, and TEs Chris Cooley and Fred Davis will become Donovan's best friends.
Clinton Portis is still the workhorse RB in the division, and Larry Johnson appears to be an ideal #2 back.
The WR corps outside of Santana Moss is a bunch of re-treads, near busts and unknowns, but Shanny appears to like them, so we'll see if they can produce.
The Oline could end up being the best in the division, and the Skins have the best head coach and a QB who can go toe to toe with any in the NFCE.

The Eagles take a step back this season IMO, and the Cowboys appear to have major problems developing along their Oline.

Without Haynesworth, the Skins D is just average, and outside of Orakpo, their LBs are aging or a poor fit for a 3-4.

I agree with Rosebud in that the SKins playing at their best will have a difficult time matching up with the Giants or Cowboys bringing their 'A' game.

It's unlikely the Skins win the division, but their improvements should at least make all the games more competitive.

UKfan
09-09-2010, 06:32 PM
I'm surprised that I am the only one to pick the Jags, especially as I am a Colts fan. The Colts could struggle quite badly with their O-line this year IMO, and the Jags always play the Titans and Texans close... it's not concrete by any stretch, but I think it is more likely than some others listed...

Vikes99ej
09-09-2010, 06:33 PM
McNabb best QB of the bunch = Redskins

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 06:51 PM
I'd say in order from most likely to least likely:

1-Washington (good defensive talent, good coach, good QB, improved OL)
2-Jacksonville (they've been there before with similar talent)
3-Cleveland (they've done it before in 2007 and finished the 2009 season on fire)
4-Kansas City (lots of offensive talent, good coordinators)
5-Detroit (potentially great offensive team, though young. Good potential in front 7)

6-Buffalo (bad bad QBs, will have trouble getting to and protecting QB)
7-Tampa Bay (too young on offense, not a great running game, weak rush D)
8-St. Louis (b/c they have a rookie QB, bad WR talent, bad defense)

McNabb, Garrard, Delhomme, and Cassel have had success in the NFL before. Stafford has a good chance to have a breakout season with his arm and the weapons he has in Detroit. That's the difference between the first four and last three teams listed I think.

nepg
09-09-2010, 07:15 PM
A lot of people think the Eagles have taken a step back, but the only basis on that opinion is going from McNabb to Kolb. We really don't know if that's going to be a step back, step forward, or side-step. Hell, it could be a flat-out square dance all season long. Other than that, the Eagles improved key areas of weakness and will be going into the season after a full season and off-season with Sean McDermott at the defensive helm.

For the original question, I like the Chiefs out of all the teams. If Weis' clock-eating ball-control offense is implemented well and if Crennel can make the most of his personnel to run his bend-don't-break defense to go along with possibly the most talented group of special teams players in the NFL, the Chiefs have the perfect formula to knock off the Chargers in the AFC West. The Chargers are really overrated to begin with. They had another slow start last year and lost a lot of talent across the board. I just don't see Norv being able to keep the Chargers afloat when they struggle early this time. They're not as talented as they've been in previous years.

hockey619
09-09-2010, 07:31 PM
Washington.

I think them and the Giants compete for the division title but neither being particularly great. They have a new and much improved offense with a great offensive coach and some very good pieces in the front seven if haynseworth mans up.

Dallas' O-line really scares me, it looked really bad from what i saw, and i think the eagles regret shipping mcnabb away.

Grizzlegom
09-09-2010, 09:01 PM
I don't think any will do it but I have the Chiefs with the best record of all the teams that were in last in their division last year so I'll give them the nod.

PoopSandwich
09-09-2010, 10:36 PM
Chiefs have a solid nucleus that defense really needs to step up though, and the AFC west could be up in the air.

Splat
09-09-2010, 10:42 PM
Chiefs have a solid nucleus that defense really needs to step up though, and the AFC west could be up in the air.

This is the first some what positive thing you have ever said about the Chiefs.

Brent
09-10-2010, 06:07 AM
I said Jacksonville because I am hoping that Jack Del Rio pulls out a miracle.

XxXdragonXxX
09-10-2010, 09:06 AM
Tampa Bay, because worst to first happens almost every year in that division.

2002- First- Buccaneers, last- Panthers
2003- First- Panthers, last- Falcons
2004- First- Falcons, last- Buccaneers
2005- First- Panthers, last- Saints (Buccaneers finished 11-5 and made the playoffs)
2006- First- Saints, last-, Buccaneers
2007- First- Buccaneers, last- Falcons
2008- First- Panthers, last- Saints (Falcons finished 11-5 and made the playoffs)
2009- First- Saints, last- Buccaneers

The only 2 times last to first didn't happen, the previous years last place team still made the playoffs.

And if you think that just because the Saints beat the Vikings that means they'll be good this year...

In 2002 the Buccaneers won the division and the Superbowl, beating the Eagles in the NFCC game. They opened 2003 with a 17-0 win over the Eagles (who finished the season 12-4). The Buccaneers finished the season 7-9.

Last year the Saints won the division and the Superbowl, beating the Vikings in the NFCC game. They started this season with a 14-9 win over the Vikings.....TBC....

FlyingElvis
09-10-2010, 09:57 AM
I don't believe any of them will do it, either. I voted for the Chiefs b/c they have the best shot overall. Washington would be a close second simply because I believe in Donovan McNabb. With a better, more reliable WR core I would back them much more wholeheartedly.

Mr.Regular
09-10-2010, 09:59 AM
Washington is the most talented team there so I'm inclined to go with them, but if Bradford is really as good as he looked and the NFC West is as bad as we all think the Rams also have a shot. Those are the only 2 teams I see with a realistic shot of coming in first.

LizardState
09-12-2010, 11:58 AM
I don't think it will happen either but I went with the Chiefs as well just do to the Div's the other teams play in.

The NFC West is pretty wide open as well but I think the Rams are at best 3rd in the Div but more then likely last.

Pretty much that, I voted KC Chiefs. They have the best shot in a weak division to get past the Raiders & Denver. They are a very young, hungry team with a lot of team speed.

Nikolas
09-13-2010, 10:57 PM
Halfway through the Chargers-Chiefs game, it's looking like KC is the favorite to go Worst-to-First.