PDA

View Full Version : Which teams will do worse?


Phrost
05-05-2007, 04:45 PM
If connection to the who will do better thread. What teams do you believe, based off of the offseason, schedule, and in general bad luck, will have the biggest drop off in performance? Win wise.

sweetness34
05-05-2007, 04:46 PM
Well Chicago will do worse win/loss wise, I'll bet on that.

Phrost
05-05-2007, 04:47 PM
Well Chicago will do worse win/loss wise, I'll bet on that.

I thought the same when I made this thread.

RaiderNation
05-05-2007, 04:50 PM
i think chiefs. they lost alot of good people on the offence. i think they drop into a top 10 draft team and i think LJ will want to be traded

Phrost
05-05-2007, 04:52 PM
i think chiefs. they lost alot of good people on the offence. i think they drop into a top 10 draft team and i think LJ will want to be traded

Package him a first and possibly more for a shot at Mcfadden?

49erfaithful
05-05-2007, 04:53 PM
chargers might, new coach, who isnt the best, and will have the pressure of living up to expectations. Eagles also, Mcnabb will probably get injured and they have no proven backup.

JCshutEmDown
05-05-2007, 05:07 PM
Bears, Giants

bearsfan_51
05-05-2007, 05:11 PM
This is easily the Chiefs. They've basically admitted that they're rebuilding.

awfullyquiet
05-05-2007, 05:25 PM
Indy'll do worse too. i can see them being a 10 winner...

i mean, with the sheer number of close games they've had during the regular season, it's very possible that they'll get the shaft.

sweetness34
05-05-2007, 05:25 PM
How about the Saints? Tougher schedule, won't take anyone by surprise, didn't really upgrade their defense at all...I think they're in for a much tougher season personally.

OhioState
05-05-2007, 05:25 PM
The Bills are in a huge rebuilding phase after letting most of their veteran talent go, especially on defense

Space Ghost
05-05-2007, 05:29 PM
I think that this is a building year for the Bills, last year was just seeing who fit and who didn't, the Bills will do worse, my guess is 5-11 or 6-10 because of our losses and ridiculous schedule.

Auron
05-05-2007, 05:37 PM
How about the Saints? Tougher schedule, won't take anyone by surprise, didn't really upgrade their defense at all...I think they're in for a much tougher season personally.

Well we did acquire a starting LB, and CB, and brought in a Safety that will see a lot of time on the field in nickel/dime packages.

although the NFC South will be a lot tougher this season, on paper every team has made improvements through FA and the Draft.

Flyboy
05-05-2007, 05:39 PM
How about the Saints? Tougher schedule, won't take anyone by surprise, didn't really upgrade their defense at all...I think they're in for a much tougher season personally.

I never understood the phrase "taking teams by surprise". After a certain point in last season, teams knew what to prepare for when facing us for the most part. We didn't sneak up behind teams and say "BOO" to beat them. Some teams adjusted and beat us (like the Redskins & Bears in the latter parts of the season) and some didn't. Period. To me that phrase makes no sense.

Anyhow, to say we didn't upgrade the defense... our biggest gap last year defensively was our secondary most notably Fred Thomas. We now have Jason David as the opposite corner to Mike McKenzie. Also, re-signed all our important defensive starters and added Brian Simmons & Kevin Kaesviharn for depth (or possibly starter considering how Bullocks does in camp). Also, with Roman Harper coming back (hopefully healthy) that would be another added bonus. Even with our lackluster defense (although we were 11th in the NFL) last season, we still met it to the NFLCG and were one win away from the Super Bowl. We didn't make a lot of turnover, but we took care of all the positions we needed to except for probably defensive tackle.

Now, I'm not saying if we'll be as successful as last year or not, but I wanted to clear up those misnomers about our team.

princefielder28
05-05-2007, 05:51 PM
I think the Kansas City Chiefs will decline quite a bit and be the 3rd best team in the AFC West.

Flyboy
05-05-2007, 05:53 PM
I think the Kansas City Chiefs will decline quite a bit and be the 3rd best team in the AFC West.

If the Raiders can somehow get some blocking from their offensive line and produce some actual offense, it wouldn't surprise me to see them be the 4th team in the AFC West.

princefielder28
05-05-2007, 05:54 PM
If the Raiders can somehow get some blocking from their offensive line and produce some actual offense, it wouldn't surprise me to see them be the 4th team in the AFC West.

I was about to put 4th but the Chiefs just have a little more collective talent to get them over the edge against the Raiders, but it wouldn't suprise me at all of the Chiefs do finish last in the West

drmoyer421
05-05-2007, 06:08 PM
I gaurantee the JETS will have a be on the fence for a losing season this year

1. Pennington WILL NOT stay healthy.

2. Instead of playing Oakland, Detroit, Houston, and Tenn (without Young),.. they now have Philly, Baltimore, Cincy and Tenn (with Young)

3. They will have a hard time splitting with NE this year, and if it wasnt for a turn-over Buffalo would of took two against them convincingly.

High Roller
05-05-2007, 06:11 PM
I like what Mangini is doing but there is no way the Jets do better than 10-6. I can see 9-7 at most.

Go_Eagles77
05-05-2007, 06:16 PM
Eagles also, Mcnabb will probably get injured and they have no proven backup.

AJ Feeley and Kelly Holcomb...

Also I love how everyone is so sure McNabb is gonna get injured again.

LitoSheppard
05-05-2007, 06:19 PM
chargers might, new coach, who isnt the best, and will have the pressure of living up to expectations. Eagles also, Mcnabb will probably get injured and they have no proven backup.

Well backups: Kolb, Feeley, Holcomb
Proven Backups: Feeley (Led Eagles to superbowl when McNabb was injured before) and Holcomb is like a 11 year vet

Auron
05-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Anyhow, to say we didn't upgrade the defense... our biggest gap last year defensively was our secondary most notably Fred Thomas. We now have Jason David as the opposite corner to Mike McKenzie. Also, re-signed all our important defensive starters and added Brian Simmons & Kevin Kaesviharn for depth (or possibly starter considering how Bullocks does in camp). Also, with Roman Harper coming back (hopefully healthy) that would be another added bonus. Even with our lackluster defense (although we were 11th in the NFL) last season, we still met it to the NFLCG and were one win away from the Super Bowl. We didn't make a lot of turnover, but we took care of all the positions we needed to except for probably defensive tackle.

Now, I'm not saying if we'll be as successful as last year or not, but I wanted to clear up those misnomers about our team.

If I could give out anymore rep I would.

I think in order to understand just how important the Jason David signing was to us, you have to realize how poorly Fred Thomas played last season.

I can't say off the top of my head but I believe he gave up around 12 TDs last season, most of them long yardage and numerous big plays. It got to the point where he was a TD just waiting to happen for the other team.

David isn't a superstar by any means but he's a young (24) CB that was a solid starter for the Colts, and that's all we need a solid CB that won't give up the huge plays down field every game.

JCshutEmDown
05-05-2007, 06:21 PM
Proven Backups: Feeley (Led Eagles to superbowl when McNabb was injured before)


Maybe on Madden he did that.

Go_Eagles77
05-05-2007, 06:24 PM
Maybe on Madden he did that.

Actually it was the NFCCG, but close enough.

mav91
05-05-2007, 06:28 PM
the chargers will no doubt be worse...record wise..tougher schedule makes it impossible almost to go 14-2 again..now if they could trade some of those wins for some playoff wins..that'll be fine with me

BigDawg819
05-05-2007, 06:39 PM
I'm wondering if the Bengals will be able to stay competitive with the loss of Henry and a rookie corner.

Addict
05-05-2007, 06:44 PM
I'm wondering if the Bengals will be able to stay competitive with the loss of Henry and a rookie corner.

Well... I'm not sure, I mean... maybe when some guys can avoid getting arrested they'll actually do better...

Kurve
05-05-2007, 07:21 PM
teams i think will do worse next year compared to last season.

Ravens (I have a feeling Mcnair will hit a speed bump and not perform as good as he did in years before, especially if pittsburgh and cincy both play well this year). [8-8]

Chargers ( I think with all the changes this will be a sophmore slump for rivers well his sophmore year by being the starter, I think there defense wont be as dominate as they were last year.) [9-7]

Chiefs (With the lose of many key offensive line men in the last few years will finally pay a toll and age will come a factor as well. I dont think Larry will go anywhere even though he is a prime rb in the league i just dont think a team will want to trade for what it will cost to get LJ.) [4-12]

Dallas (I think Romo will struggle and i dont think they addressed the OLine as they should have and i think it will show. I also think there secondary will struggle as they did last year and Wade's first year with the team will be a Hard one.) [6-10]

nobodyinparticular
05-05-2007, 07:27 PM
I'm wondering if the Bengals will be able to stay competitive with the loss of Henry and a rookie corner.

Replacing Tory James with Leon Hall is an immediate upgrade. James has not been better than average since 2002 with the Raiders.

BigDawg819
05-05-2007, 07:30 PM
Replacing Tory James with Leon Hall is an immediate upgrade. James has not been better than average since 2002 with the Raiders.

He may be an upgrade but still will be a rookie and will make mistakes.

Eaglez.Fan
05-05-2007, 07:35 PM
I'm going to say the Packers, just because I don't see them being in the top half of the league record wise. And whoever said Philly is a complete idiot.

cardsalltheway
05-05-2007, 07:46 PM
Indy'll do worse too. i can see them being a 10 winner...

i mean, with the sheer number of close games they've had during the regular season, it's very possible that they'll get the shaft.

They'll do worse because they knew how to win close games? That's some great reasoning right there.

JT Jag
05-05-2007, 07:56 PM
Indy'll do worse too. i can see them being a 10 winner...

i mean, with the sheer number of close games they've had during the regular season, it's very possible that they'll get the shaft.They'll do worse because they knew how to win close games? That's some great reasoning right there.No... they'll do worse because the law of averages will catch up to them eventually.

Which brings me to the Colts' amazing run of luck when it comes to injuries to major contributers. From 1999-2006, whilst they have been the winningest team in the NFL, there has only been one injury of note on their explosive offense--- the one to Edgerrin James in 2001, which was a big cause of the only losing record in Tony Dungy's career in Indy.

What happens to Indy if Peyton Manning goes down for 5-6 weeks? Answer: The team loses 4-5 games.

portermvp84
05-05-2007, 08:00 PM
I think the Cheifs will do worst. They lost a vatile part of their oline Will Sheilds. I'm not quiet sure if they are certain on the QB they are gonna use. I just think overall they'll do worse.

awfullyquiet
05-05-2007, 08:00 PM
They'll do worse because they knew how to win close games? That's some great reasoning right there.

the dice can roll the other way.

they were good, but they never dominated. i mean, sure, you have captain v kicking for the win six times a year. and with a slightly improved titans squad (minus pacman. r.i.p.) a jacksonville running threat, and maybe the texans being able to do... something... their record vs the south last year was pretty mediocre. and to think, oh my gosh, i'm going to play six games vs them.

they wiped the texans the first time, barely won against the titans in week six. lost against the titans in december, then again at jacksonville (where everyone realized. holy crap, you can run against them and control the clock! OH GOD! and MJD ran for six billion yards...) and then one more loss at houston... if any of those teams in the south improve, you can count them for more losses.

Pats are also probably good for one loss. San diego? Atlanta... b-more? all of those are possibilites of losses. and OMG, what happens if manning or harrison or wayne gets hurt (i really don't think anyone contemplates that ANYONE could get hurt and anyone can not get hurt... i mean, everyone last year was saying, oh grossman will get hurt again, he's injury prone. and. well. lies)... so... 10-6 isn't out of the question if some of their 6 games decided by 3 or less (which they went 3 for 6 in) don't go their favor.

JT (rep+, i think you type quicker than i do... but know where i was going with that.)

nobodyinparticular
05-05-2007, 08:03 PM
He may be an upgrade but still will be a rookie and will make mistakes.

But that's my point, James has been making mistakes (and more of them each year) since 2003. Hall will do just fine.

cardsalltheway
05-05-2007, 08:59 PM
the dice can roll the other way.

they were good, but they never dominated. i mean, sure, you have captain v kicking for the win six times a year. and with a slightly improved titans squad (minus pacman. r.i.p.) a jacksonville running threat, and maybe the texans being able to do... something... their record vs the south last year was pretty mediocre. and to think, oh my gosh, i'm going to play six games vs them.

they wiped the texans the first time, barely won against the titans in week six. lost against the titans in december, then again at jacksonville (where everyone realized. holy crap, you can run against them and control the clock! OH GOD! and MJD ran for six billion yards...) and then one more loss at houston... if any of those teams in the south improve, you can count them for more losses.

Pats are also probably good for one loss. San diego? Atlanta... b-more? all of those are possibilites of losses. and OMG, what happens if manning or harrison or wayne gets hurt (i really don't think anyone contemplates that ANYONE could get hurt and anyone can not get hurt... i mean, everyone last year was saying, oh grossman will get hurt again, he's injury prone. and. well. lies)... so... 10-6 isn't out of the question if some of their 6 games decided by 3 or less (which they went 3 for 6 in) don't go their favor.

JT (rep+, i think you type quicker than i do... but know where i was going with that.)

I'm not saying there's not a possiblity of them being worse, because it's without a doubt there. But at least use quality reasoning unlike you did in your OP. To say that a team will get worse just because they won a lot of close games doesn't make sense. There's a reason that they won the majority, and it's not lucky.

Every game against a good team is obviously a possibility for a loss, but just because they're playing good teams doesn't mean they'll automatically lose to them.

Yes the run defense was downright awful last year, but the chances of it being that bad again are very slim. They showed how much better they could do when Bob is in the lineup in the playoffs and the front 7 has only improved from last season's.

You can use the injury arguement for the majority of teams in the league. If they were to lose one of their two best players, things are likely to get worse. But without an injury history there's no logical reason to predict that those will happen.

cardsalltheway
05-05-2007, 09:01 PM
No... they'll do worse because the law of averages will catch up to them eventually.

Which brings me to the Colts' amazing run of luck when it comes to injuries to major contributers. From 1999-2006, whilst they have been the winningest team in the NFL, there has only been one injury of note on their explosive offense--- the one to Edgerrin James in 2001, which was a big cause of the only losing record in Tony Dungy's career in Indy.

What happens to Indy if Peyton Manning goes down for 5-6 weeks? Answer: The team loses 4-5 games.

And why will one of them suddenly get hurt this year? Marvin is fantastic at protecting his body and Peyton's pocket presence is top-notch. Addai seemed fully capable of carrying the load when he got more and more carries at the end of the season. Obviously injuries could occur and that would be bad, but there's no reason to think they will. Guys like Peyton and Marvin don't stay healthy because of luck, they stay healthy because they protect themselves from injury.

JT Jag
05-05-2007, 09:10 PM
And why will one of them suddenly get hurt this year? Marvin is fantastic at protecting his body and Peyton's pocket presence is top-notch. Addai seemed fully capable of carrying the load when he got more and more carries at the end of the season. Obviously injuries could occur and that would be bad, but there's no reason to think they will. Guys like Peyton and Marvin don't stay healthy because of luck, they stay healthy because they protect themselves from injury.Because anyone can get hurt... and because Addai in particular has an injury history dating back to high school.

bearsfan_51
05-05-2007, 09:11 PM
The thing that people have to remember about the Bears is that we still play in the North. That right there is going to keep our record at least about the mendoza line. I don't think we'll win 13 games next year either, but I'd be pretty suprised if we don't at least have a winning record.

doingthisinsteadofwork
05-05-2007, 09:11 PM
San Diego.
They have Norv Turner as HC.

draftguru151
05-05-2007, 09:14 PM
Predicting a team will be bad because of injuries is asinine, especially when you are predicting a player that never missed a game in his career to get hurt.

As for the teams that will decline, Chicago, Baltimore, NO, the Jets, Kansas City, Dallas, the Giants and Titans all have a chance. I think Chicago, KC and the Titans will all be under .500 next season, and either Dallas or the Giants will be around 8-8.

Flyboy
05-05-2007, 09:15 PM
San Diego.
They have Norv Turner as HC.

Touche, sir. I was thinking the exact same thing.

GB12
05-05-2007, 09:50 PM
The thing that people have to remember about the Bears is that we still play in the North. That right there is going to keep our record at least about the mendoza line. I don't think we'll win 13 games next year either, but I'd be pretty suprised if we don't at least have a winning record.

I think everyone would be surprised if they were below .500. They will drop off a little bit though. I think they have 2 years left at the top of the division, then someone else will take over.

princefielder28
05-05-2007, 09:52 PM
I think everyone would be surprised if they were below .500. They will drop off a little bit though. I think they have 2 years left at the top of the division, then someone else will take over.

***cough*** Green Bay ***cough****

P-L
05-05-2007, 10:04 PM
I think Tennessee is going to come back down to earth next year. They lost Travis Henry, who was a bigger part of their success than some Vince Young fans want to admit. Not only did they lose Henry, but they haven't replaced him with anyone and it appears that they are going to go with LenDale White and Chris Henry at RB. They really didn't improve the offense around Vince Young like they should've. They lost their two leading receivers from last year and replaced them with Paul Williams and Justin Gage. I don't expect a huge fall, but I think they are going to need some more offensive weapons before they get back to and improve on that 8-8 record of last year.

The Dynasty
05-05-2007, 10:12 PM
The thing that people have to remember about the Bears is that we still play in the North. That right there is going to keep our record at least about the mendoza line. I don't think we'll win 13 games next year either, but I'd be pretty suprised if we don't at least have a winning record.

Yeah, NFC North is going to have a tough battle i feel. We are playing the NFC East which could be tough and also AFC West which is another tough divison to play. I think it will be a close divison but the Bears come out on top because of the defense and can score more than 20 a game. Unlike the vikings who give up 30 and allow 60 rushing yards a game and we can only score like 18 a game.

Im just going out on a limb here and saying Seattle will do the worse record wise. The NFC West has gotten stronger and im just unsure about them but i could be wrong.

Bengalsrz
05-05-2007, 10:32 PM
KC and Chicago probably. KC is entering their rebuilding stage, and as Sweetness said, Win/Loss wise, the Bears have to go down.

ks_perfection
05-05-2007, 10:40 PM
I think Tennessee is going to come back down to earth next year. They lost Travis Henry, who was a bigger part of their success than some Vince Young fans want to admit. Not only did they lose Henry, but they haven't replaced him with anyone and it appears that they are going to go with LenDale White and Chris Henry at RB. They really didn't improve the offense around Vince Young like they should've. They lost their two leading receivers from last year and replaced them with Paul Williams and Justin Gage. I don't expect a huge fall, but I think they are going to need some more offensive weapons before they get back to and improve on that 8-8 record of last year.

I definitly agree, there RB & WR are the worst in the league. VJ scrambling ability won't matter if teams can zero in on him. Plus theres the big loss of Pacman, he was huge defensively and really helped on returns. They would have lost atleast 2 games last season without him, the Giants game and the second Jaguar game.

Even with Tennessee big drop in talent and playmakers I think Baltimore will have the bigger drop. Baltimore although a great defense did win alot of close games last season with come from behind victories at the end. Plus they play in a division with 2 other very good teams and have a first place schedule. I could easily see any of the Ravens/Steelers/Bengals taking the division. At 12-4 the Ravens can go 8-8 and it would be the same drop as the Titans going all the way down to 4-12.

Phrost
05-05-2007, 10:54 PM
I agree with JT Jag, something has gotta give with the Colts. Averages will be met with at least one major player on that team.

Who? Not saying, I will hint that it will cost them at least two wins.

Not a promise, a threat...wait I got that wrong, its a promise...Nope just a hunch actually.

Ewing
05-05-2007, 10:59 PM
I think the Giants, Jets, Bears, and Chiefs will all have big dropoffs. As for the Titans, I highly doubt we'll be better than 8-8 but we won't go 4-12. Henry wasn't that big of a loss. He didn't anything for the Titans until Young began starting. Although the receivers could be better I think Brandon Jones is going to explode this year. I don't think we'll do worse than 7-9.

Shiver
05-05-2007, 11:07 PM
I think the Giants and Titans will fall off, and hard.

Jensen
05-06-2007, 12:46 AM
Chiefs, then the Titans. I think the Chiefs will have a top 10 pick, maybe even top 5.

Nitschke-Hawk
05-06-2007, 12:52 AM
Kansas City, San Diego, Tennessee.

sodar21
05-06-2007, 01:02 AM
With teams like Arizona, Buffalo, San Francisco on the verge of becoming playoff contenders again (or for one of the few times in Arizona's case), there are teams I see as entering what will be a several years of struggle.

New York Giants
Philadelphia Eagles (feel bad for McNabb)
Washington Redskins
Kansas City Chiefs

JC the Savior
05-06-2007, 01:35 AM
Denver will be better

Phrost
05-06-2007, 01:40 AM
Denver will be better

Barring injury Henry is 1500+ yards. $ on that.

nobodyinparticular
05-06-2007, 02:32 AM
I agree with JT Jag, something has gotta give with the Colts. Averages will be met with at least one major player on that team.

Who? Not saying, I will hint that it will cost them at least two wins.

Not a promise, a threat...wait I got that wrong, its a promise...Nope just a hunch actually.

I'm glad Miss Cleo told you that. Personally though, after a fortune like that, I would have asked for my money back.

zoinks
05-06-2007, 02:55 AM
As a Titans fan, I am duty-bound to predict the decline of the Colts....they've sustained significant losses on the defensive side of the ball in each of the past two offseasons (including four starters this year), but have done little to address it. Moreover, it appears that their division rivals have finally gotten the Colts' number....0-3 against the AFC South down the stretch last year.

No way do the Bears win 13 games next year.....and I'll step up and predict that once the smoke clears after a tight division race for the NFC West, Seattle misses the postseason.

Dam8610
05-06-2007, 05:00 AM
No... they'll do worse because the law of averages will catch up to them eventually.

Which brings me to the Colts' amazing run of luck when it comes to injuries to major contributers. From 1999-2006, whilst they have been the winningest team in the NFL, there has only been one injury of note on their explosive offense--- the one to Edgerrin James in 2001, which was a big cause of the only losing record in Tony Dungy's career in Indy.

What happens to Indy if Peyton Manning goes down for 5-6 weeks? Answer: The team loses 4-5 games.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with this. 2001 was Jim Mora's final season as Colts Head Coach, not Dungy's first. What if Peyton Manning goes down for a long period of time? The same thing that happens to any other team that loses a major contributor, they lose a lot more frequently than they otherwise would. Fortunately for the Colts, Peyton Manning is a tough player, and has only had to miss one play in his career due to injury, and that was because he had to get his jaw wired shut, due to it being broken on the previous play. Using a hypothetical scenario to take away a major contributor from a team is a pretty weak argument, especially when said scenario has never happened during that player's career. Did you ever think the Colts' "luck" with injuries has to do with players knowing what to do in certain situations? This is why Marvin Harrison always goes out of bounds instead of taking extra punishment (but as a side note, he's played the past two seasons with various arm injuries), why Peyton Manning knows how to "take a sack", etc. Also, Dallas Clark has missed quite a few games due to injury over that time period, as has Brandon Stokley. So, the Colts have not been extremely lucky with injuries. Their best players offensively are durable, but IMO that's more of knowing what to look for in a player than luck. Also, how does the law of averages work out when a team has a QB that has the most comeback wins to his credit in the NFL since 2000?

johbur
05-06-2007, 05:37 AM
As a Titans fan, I am duty-bound to predict the decline of the Colts....they've sustained significant losses on the defensive side of the ball in each of the past two offseasons (including four starters this year), but have done little to address it. Moreover, it appears that their division rivals have finally gotten the Colts' number....0-3 against the AFC South down the stretch last year.

No way do the Bears win 13 games next year.....and I'll step up and predict that once the smoke clears after a tight division race for the NFC West, Seattle misses the postseason.

I get that feeling with Seattle also. Some of it has to do with the HC, in that I don't know if he has the desire to grind out the season, but also that their division looks much improved.

Why can't the Bears win 12 games? They have a top-flight receiving threat down the middle of the field and still have a strong defense. If Lance Briggs holds out the first ten games that'll be ugly, and also they messed around with their run game in the off season. I'm hoping they are 9-7, but they'll probably win 11 or 12 games sadly.

JCutlery
05-06-2007, 11:12 AM
Kansas City Chiefs. I have a bad feeling about their offense this year. Damon Huard behind that offensive line? Both Kennison and Gonzalez are a year older, and Bowe is a rookie WR, which is the hardest transition to make. Counting on consistent production out of him would be a mistake.

T-RICH49
05-06-2007, 11:31 AM
As much as it pains me I bieleve the Chiefs will be a lot worse depending on who starts.If it's Croyle then I see a top 3 pick

skinzzfan25
05-06-2007, 05:36 PM
The Browns. They are better as a team, but that schedule is insane.

Number 10
05-06-2007, 05:39 PM
This is easily the Chiefs. They've basically admitted that they're rebuilding.

Top 5 pick for sure.

BPhilb
05-06-2007, 07:26 PM
This is easily the Chiefs. They've basically admitted that they're rebuilding.

Not really. They signed Donnie Edwards, Damion McIntosh and Napolean Harris and none of those are necissarily "building blocks" for the future. KC is trying to get younger while staying competetive. Given Herm's style of coaching I still imagine that KC will remain fairly competeive and the schedule gets much better this year after two straight brutal schedules.

My vote would go to the Packers as I can see them being a team vying for a top 5 pick. I didn't like their offseason and they weren't quite as good as there record last season in my opinion.

sweetness34
05-06-2007, 07:36 PM
KC and Chicago probably. KC is entering their rebuilding stage, and as Sweetness said, Win/Loss wise, the Bears have to go down.

I'm talking about 3 wins drop off. I think we'll be 10-6 next season personally. But that all depends on how well Rexy does. If he can be solid next season, we're a 10-6 in my mind.

Dam8610
05-06-2007, 08:06 PM
I'm talking about 3 wins drop off. I think we'll be 10-6 next season personally. But that all depends on how well Rexy does. If he can be solid next season, we're a 10-6 in my mind.

So you think the loss of Thomas Jones will make a 3 game difference for the Bears?

Crvena Ptica
05-06-2007, 08:10 PM
I am gonna go with surprise pick. In my opinion, Ravens wont be as good as they were last season.

niel89
05-06-2007, 09:14 PM
I am gonna go with surprise pick. In my opinion, Ravens wont be as good as they were last season.

as a ravens fan, most of us agree. not really a big surprise.

Scotty D
05-06-2007, 09:18 PM
San Diego. Nice personnal moves! Letting a grudge get in the way of the success of a football team.

PalmerToCJ
05-06-2007, 09:20 PM
as a ravens fan, most of us agree. not really a big surprise.

Yeah I feel the same way. I don't want to come off on hating you all for having such a great year last year but it's hard to not drop off from 13-3.

Also to whoever said the Browns will drop off... It's hard to drop off much more than they already did, I don't say that as a smartass, just that I really don't see them doing any worse than last year.

awfullyquiet
05-06-2007, 09:56 PM
So you think the loss of Thomas Jones will make a 3 game difference for the Bears?

No. the loss of TJ has no effect i believe.
The loss of briggs might be a 3 game difference maker, depending on how Jamar Williams or any other LB can pick up the slack and be decent sideline to sideline tacklers, and decent in coverage (seeing as i bet mark anderson and bazuin, wale ogunleye and tommie harris can pressure just about any line on third down.)

niel89
05-06-2007, 10:19 PM
Yeah I feel the same way. I don't want to come off on hating you all for having such a great year last year but it's hard to not drop off from 13-3.


no hatin' taken, 13-3 is an amazing year and its hard to have that level every year.

Dam8610
05-07-2007, 12:09 AM
No. the loss of TJ has no effect i believe.
The loss of briggs might be a 3 game difference maker, depending on how Jamar Williams or any other LB can pick up the slack and be decent sideline to sideline tacklers, and decent in coverage (seeing as i bet mark anderson and bazuin, wale ogunleye and tommie harris can pressure just about any line on third down.)

Briggs is still there though.

cunningham06
05-07-2007, 12:54 AM
Giants, Chiefs, Bears, Chargers, Saints, maybe Indy.