|
On August 24 2010 05:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2010 23:38 SPYTE wrote:On August 22 2010 12:56 Disarray wrote:
I didn't understand our draft at all. Besides not drafting a coach, because we can't, it made no sense. The only position we HAVE depth in, is Running back with Lynch and Jackson, while we desperately need a Quarterback, and what do we do ? Grab the #1 Rb in the draft.. and NEVER grab a QB, while there were a few good ones even late into the draft. I know many are saying bills did it to position themselves to drade Lynch... but so far.... seems like we're stuck with 3 good backs, a good wide reciever, and a QB who hasn't been the same since the cardinals body slammed him. My girlfriends family are huge bills fans, and they have become my second favorite team to follow (I still love my packers too much. Either way, I was really upset at the draft choices for the Bills when they CLEARLY needed a change in the quarterback position. I would rather see them bring back JP Losman then use Edwards or Fitzpatrick since he actually takes some chances with long balls (but maybe that's just me). I was at the preseason opener against the redskins and I was upset at how bad they looked in the QB position as always (and I was pissed at how obnoxious redskins fans are because they are looking like they may actually do well this season). Hopefully this will just be a season to rebuild and get some draft choices for next season -.-'' Now on to mai packers! I don't think we will be able to win the division as easily now that the vikings got favre back, but I'm sure we will be having a great season! We easily have the one of the top 5 quarterbacks in the league right now (imo), and every aspect of our team is looking the better than they have in awhile  CANT WAIT!!!! I may have said this in other threads, but I honestly believe that GB was the second most overrated team last year. Weak division, and an incredibly weak schedule in the second half led to a long win streak for them. The only more overrated team, imo, was the Chargers, who had the luxury of playing in the NFL's worst division, and a soft schedule after week 4. Not surprisingly, both teams found early exits in the playoffs.
You do realize that the Vikings played the better game versus the champion Saints, but only loss because of the stupid fumbles and silly mistakes (which yes shows weakness, but overall they were the STRONGER team). Also, Packers lost to Cardinals in overtime I believe and the last play was a sack fumble which was caused by an obvious face mask tackle?? I'm sorry but you may say they are in the weakest division, but the Vikings and Packers are returning with the same if not better rosters as last season and will easily be a deadly force.
*EDIT* removed the mean comment to cowboy fans, because it isn't fair/nice 
|
On August 24 2010 05:59 SPYTE wrote:@SweeTLemonS[TPR] Point understood, but the overall context of what I was trying to say at first was I disliked the decision to get a 3rd running back when that was one of the few strongest positions for the Bills. I assume you were commenting on my sentence about trading/waiting for 2nd round choices, and yes that initial topic was brought up dealing with the Bills and not the Redskins Regardless I agree/understand the necessity of OL picks wherever you find a good choice, because that makes sense compared to what the bills chose.
I got that you understand that, I was just pinpointing a particular sentiment about OL picks. I think that, in general, your initial statement is correct. OL can be built in later rounds and through trades, but if there's a dominant LT you take him. I think the Bills best move would have been to grab Claussen or McCoy (I LOVE Colt McCoy, and fuck all the haters that don't). I wasn't trying to harp on your original statement, or even really say it TO YOU, but I used you as a reference point so people understood why I was saying what I was saying (I didn't want to seem like it was coming out of nowhere).
I actually understand the logic in their pick. Some GM's believe BPA is ALWAYS the way to go, regardless of needs, and they probably though Spiller was the BPA. I disagree, personally, I think Claussen or Dez Bryant probably had more value, but some GM's see it that way.
And just to clarify again, because the way I type (and even speak) often comes off in a way that makes it seem like what I'm saying is fact when it's just my opinion, and then especially in posts it will often seem like I'm directing something at a particular person but I'm not really... What I'm trying to say is that I'm not saying this because I think someone in particular doesn't understand what happened, I'm just giving another, general, viewpoint on the draft.
On August 24 2010 06:04 SPYTE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 05:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On August 23 2010 23:38 SPYTE wrote:On August 22 2010 12:56 Disarray wrote:
I didn't understand our draft at all. Besides not drafting a coach, because we can't, it made no sense. The only position we HAVE depth in, is Running back with Lynch and Jackson, while we desperately need a Quarterback, and what do we do ? Grab the #1 Rb in the draft.. and NEVER grab a QB, while there were a few good ones even late into the draft. I know many are saying bills did it to position themselves to drade Lynch... but so far.... seems like we're stuck with 3 good backs, a good wide reciever, and a QB who hasn't been the same since the cardinals body slammed him. My girlfriends family are huge bills fans, and they have become my second favorite team to follow (I still love my packers too much. Either way, I was really upset at the draft choices for the Bills when they CLEARLY needed a change in the quarterback position. I would rather see them bring back JP Losman then use Edwards or Fitzpatrick since he actually takes some chances with long balls (but maybe that's just me). I was at the preseason opener against the redskins and I was upset at how bad they looked in the QB position as always (and I was pissed at how obnoxious redskins fans are because they are looking like they may actually do well this season). Hopefully this will just be a season to rebuild and get some draft choices for next season -.-'' Now on to mai packers! I don't think we will be able to win the division as easily now that the vikings got favre back, but I'm sure we will be having a great season! We easily have the one of the top 5 quarterbacks in the league right now (imo), and every aspect of our team is looking the better than they have in awhile CANT WAIT!!!! I may have said this in other threads, but I honestly believe that GB was the second most overrated team last year. Weak division, and an incredibly weak schedule in the second half led to a long win streak for them. The only more overrated team, imo, was the Chargers, who had the luxury of playing in the NFL's worst division, and a soft schedule after week 4. Not surprisingly, both teams found early exits in the playoffs. You do realize that the Vikings played the better game versus the champion Saints, but only loss because of the stupid fumbles and silly mistakes (which yes shows weakness, but overall they were the STRONGER team). Also, Packers lost to Cardinals in overtime I believe and the last play was a sack fumble which was caused by an obvious face mask tackle?? I'm sorry but you may say they are in the weakest division, but the Vikings and Packers are returning with the same if not better rosters as last season and will easily be a deadly force. *EDIT* removed the mean comment to cowboy fans, because it isn't fair/nice
And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year. I don't believe the Packers are that talented on offense, save for Rodgers (who is fantastic, but still has a couple of fatal flaws, imo... such as holding the ball too long because he, apparently, has difficulty reading D's or refuses to check down), Jennings, and Driver (Btw, while I think Driver is often underrated and not given enough credit, I don't think he's a fabulous WR. He's good, maybe very good, but he's not a game breaker anymore... Jennings is). They suffer from lack of OLine skill (still do, idk who they drafted so maybe it got better?). Their CB's are very good, but their pass rush almost disappeared at points last year, and their safety play was questionable.... until they got that streak of terrible teams, then they looked good... but their D got fucking steamrolled by the first good offense they played (when they played their starters, we all know that week 17 didn't count). And the Cardinals were a team that could be stopped last year. Their offense had a lot of struggles, and a lot of teams were able to slow them down last year. It's possible that they were just firing on all cylinders at the time, but I think it was just the GB D getting exposed.
The Vikings were a fantastic team last year though, you're right. And they absolutely outplayed the Saints. They should have had the ball one more time, because IT WASN'T FUCKING PI! I'm still mad about that call.
|
Still got a few more spots for the TL fantasy football league. PM me
|
On August 24 2010 06:29 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year.
You really think the AFC West is the worst division? Even I'm a Rams fan and I think the NFC West is the currently the worst division in the league.
But in other news, the Rams have Stan Kroenke as the majority owner and behind the front office under Chip Rosenbloom was one of the major reasons why we have a 6-42 record for 3 consecutive seasons. I don't see us having any significant victories this season but I do see a bright long term future for them, hopefully out of the top 5 pick. :D
|
On August 24 2010 06:29 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 05:59 SPYTE wrote:@SweeTLemonS[TPR] Point understood, but the overall context of what I was trying to say at first was I disliked the decision to get a 3rd running back when that was one of the few strongest positions for the Bills. I assume you were commenting on my sentence about trading/waiting for 2nd round choices, and yes that initial topic was brought up dealing with the Bills and not the Redskins Regardless I agree/understand the necessity of OL picks wherever you find a good choice, because that makes sense compared to what the bills chose. I got that you understand that, I was just pinpointing a particular sentiment about OL picks. I think that, in general, your initial statement is correct. OL can be built in later rounds and through trades, but if there's a dominant LT you take him. I think the Bills best move would have been to grab Claussen or McCoy (I LOVE Colt McCoy, and fuck all the haters that don't). I wasn't trying to harp on your original statement, or even really say it TO YOU, but I used you as a reference point so people understood why I was saying what I was saying (I didn't want to seem like it was coming out of nowhere). I actually understand the logic in their pick. Some GM's believe BPA is ALWAYS the way to go, regardless of needs, and they probably though Spiller was the BPA. I disagree, personally, I think Claussen or Dez Bryant probably had more value, but some GM's see it that way. And just to clarify again, because the way I type (and even speak) often comes off in a way that makes it seem like what I'm saying is fact when it's just my opinion, and then especially in posts it will often seem like I'm directing something at a particular person but I'm not really... What I'm trying to say is that I'm not saying this because I think someone in particular doesn't understand what happened, I'm just giving another, general, viewpoint on the draft. Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 06:04 SPYTE wrote:On August 24 2010 05:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On August 23 2010 23:38 SPYTE wrote:On August 22 2010 12:56 Disarray wrote:
I didn't understand our draft at all. Besides not drafting a coach, because we can't, it made no sense. The only position we HAVE depth in, is Running back with Lynch and Jackson, while we desperately need a Quarterback, and what do we do ? Grab the #1 Rb in the draft.. and NEVER grab a QB, while there were a few good ones even late into the draft. I know many are saying bills did it to position themselves to drade Lynch... but so far.... seems like we're stuck with 3 good backs, a good wide reciever, and a QB who hasn't been the same since the cardinals body slammed him. My girlfriends family are huge bills fans, and they have become my second favorite team to follow (I still love my packers too much. Either way, I was really upset at the draft choices for the Bills when they CLEARLY needed a change in the quarterback position. I would rather see them bring back JP Losman then use Edwards or Fitzpatrick since he actually takes some chances with long balls (but maybe that's just me). I was at the preseason opener against the redskins and I was upset at how bad they looked in the QB position as always (and I was pissed at how obnoxious redskins fans are because they are looking like they may actually do well this season). Hopefully this will just be a season to rebuild and get some draft choices for next season -.-'' Now on to mai packers! I don't think we will be able to win the division as easily now that the vikings got favre back, but I'm sure we will be having a great season! We easily have the one of the top 5 quarterbacks in the league right now (imo), and every aspect of our team is looking the better than they have in awhile CANT WAIT!!!! I may have said this in other threads, but I honestly believe that GB was the second most overrated team last year. Weak division, and an incredibly weak schedule in the second half led to a long win streak for them. The only more overrated team, imo, was the Chargers, who had the luxury of playing in the NFL's worst division, and a soft schedule after week 4. Not surprisingly, both teams found early exits in the playoffs. You do realize that the Vikings played the better game versus the champion Saints, but only loss because of the stupid fumbles and silly mistakes (which yes shows weakness, but overall they were the STRONGER team). Also, Packers lost to Cardinals in overtime I believe and the last play was a sack fumble which was caused by an obvious face mask tackle?? I'm sorry but you may say they are in the weakest division, but the Vikings and Packers are returning with the same if not better rosters as last season and will easily be a deadly force. *EDIT* removed the mean comment to cowboy fans, because it isn't fair/nice And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year. I don't believe the Packers are that talented on offense, save for Rodgers (who is fantastic, but still has a couple of fatal flaws, imo... such as holding the ball too long because he, apparently, has difficulty reading D's or refuses to check down), Jennings, and Driver (Btw, while I think Driver is often underrated and not given enough credit, I don't think he's a fabulous WR. He's good, maybe very good, but he's not a game breaker anymore... Jennings is). They suffer from lack of OLine skill (still do, idk who they drafted so maybe it got better?). Their CB's are very good, but their pass rush almost disappeared at points last year, and their safety play was questionable.... until they got that streak of terrible teams, then they looked good... but their D got fucking steamrolled by the first good offense they played (when they played their starters, we all know that week 17 didn't count). And the Cardinals were a team that could be stopped last year. Their offense had a lot of struggles, and a lot of teams were able to slow them down last year. It's possible that they were just firing on all cylinders at the time, but I think it was just the GB D getting exposed. The Vikings were a fantastic team last year though, you're right. And they absolutely outplayed the Saints. They should have had the ball one more time, because IT WASN'T FUCKING PI! I'm still mad about that call.
I'm sorry but the bears definitely have the potential to be a good time once again. Maybe not soon but they are definitely not too bad. The same can be said about the Detroit Lions. It's not their fault they are in a division with two much stronger teams like the Packers and Vikings (this means both of these teams get about 4 loses automatically for last season, and probably again for this season).
I'm sorry but in my opinion the AFC North & East, and the NFC North & East are the stronger divisions in the NFL. It's been this way for a long time, and I'm sure it will stay this way. Wasn't it just the season before last where the winners of the NFC West and AFC West only had 9-7 or 8-8 records??
I'll slightly say that NFC South is up and down with the quality of their teams, but right now Panthers are bad and Buccaneers are bad (with Falcons being the toss up).
Obviously I will repeat this is just my opinion, and also it's the great thing about football (and most sports). It doesn't mean a damn what I think because I'm trying to talk about people whose job it is to work out and make sure they go out to win. So technically any team has the potential to win, but I definitely stick behind my opinion that the NFC/AFC South & West are the "bad" divisions in the NFL at this time (and last season).
|
Welp my Broncos are basically f'ed, plus I'm in korea and have no idea how to watch this year. I'm personally hoping for some more surprises out of the Bengals.
|
WOOOHOOOO, it may be a preseason game but we finally got our revenge against the Patsies and best of all, we beat them with our second stringers in the second half that just made Belichick start ripping his hair off. Sam Bradford looks proven to be starting material
|
On August 26 2010 09:07 Dknight wrote:
Still got a few more spots for the TL fantasy football league. PM me
a few? lol
|
On August 26 2010 09:22 yrba1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 06:29 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year. You really think the AFC West is the worst division? Even I'm a Rams fan and I think the NFC West is the currently the worst division in the league. But in other news, the Rams have Stan Kroenke as the majority owner and behind the front office under Chip Rosenbloom was one of the major reasons why we have a 6-42 record for 3 consecutive seasons. I don't see us having any significant victories this season but I do see a bright long term future for them, hopefully out of the top 5 pick. :D
Honestly, the NFC West is so bad I forgot about them. But in my breakdown below, you'll see that I don't think the AFC West is that significantly better. I think they're the two worst divisions in the league.
On August 26 2010 23:04 SPYTE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 06:29 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On August 24 2010 05:59 SPYTE wrote:@SweeTLemonS[TPR] Point understood, but the overall context of what I was trying to say at first was I disliked the decision to get a 3rd running back when that was one of the few strongest positions for the Bills. I assume you were commenting on my sentence about trading/waiting for 2nd round choices, and yes that initial topic was brought up dealing with the Bills and not the Redskins Regardless I agree/understand the necessity of OL picks wherever you find a good choice, because that makes sense compared to what the bills chose. I got that you understand that, I was just pinpointing a particular sentiment about OL picks. I think that, in general, your initial statement is correct. OL can be built in later rounds and through trades, but if there's a dominant LT you take him. I think the Bills best move would have been to grab Claussen or McCoy (I LOVE Colt McCoy, and fuck all the haters that don't). I wasn't trying to harp on your original statement, or even really say it TO YOU, but I used you as a reference point so people understood why I was saying what I was saying (I didn't want to seem like it was coming out of nowhere). I actually understand the logic in their pick. Some GM's believe BPA is ALWAYS the way to go, regardless of needs, and they probably though Spiller was the BPA. I disagree, personally, I think Claussen or Dez Bryant probably had more value, but some GM's see it that way. And just to clarify again, because the way I type (and even speak) often comes off in a way that makes it seem like what I'm saying is fact when it's just my opinion, and then especially in posts it will often seem like I'm directing something at a particular person but I'm not really... What I'm trying to say is that I'm not saying this because I think someone in particular doesn't understand what happened, I'm just giving another, general, viewpoint on the draft. On August 24 2010 06:04 SPYTE wrote:On August 24 2010 05:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On August 23 2010 23:38 SPYTE wrote:On August 22 2010 12:56 Disarray wrote:
I didn't understand our draft at all. Besides not drafting a coach, because we can't, it made no sense. The only position we HAVE depth in, is Running back with Lynch and Jackson, while we desperately need a Quarterback, and what do we do ? Grab the #1 Rb in the draft.. and NEVER grab a QB, while there were a few good ones even late into the draft. I know many are saying bills did it to position themselves to drade Lynch... but so far.... seems like we're stuck with 3 good backs, a good wide reciever, and a QB who hasn't been the same since the cardinals body slammed him. My girlfriends family are huge bills fans, and they have become my second favorite team to follow (I still love my packers too much. Either way, I was really upset at the draft choices for the Bills when they CLEARLY needed a change in the quarterback position. I would rather see them bring back JP Losman then use Edwards or Fitzpatrick since he actually takes some chances with long balls (but maybe that's just me). I was at the preseason opener against the redskins and I was upset at how bad they looked in the QB position as always (and I was pissed at how obnoxious redskins fans are because they are looking like they may actually do well this season). Hopefully this will just be a season to rebuild and get some draft choices for next season -.-'' Now on to mai packers! I don't think we will be able to win the division as easily now that the vikings got favre back, but I'm sure we will be having a great season! We easily have the one of the top 5 quarterbacks in the league right now (imo), and every aspect of our team is looking the better than they have in awhile CANT WAIT!!!! I may have said this in other threads, but I honestly believe that GB was the second most overrated team last year. Weak division, and an incredibly weak schedule in the second half led to a long win streak for them. The only more overrated team, imo, was the Chargers, who had the luxury of playing in the NFL's worst division, and a soft schedule after week 4. Not surprisingly, both teams found early exits in the playoffs. You do realize that the Vikings played the better game versus the champion Saints, but only loss because of the stupid fumbles and silly mistakes (which yes shows weakness, but overall they were the STRONGER team). Also, Packers lost to Cardinals in overtime I believe and the last play was a sack fumble which was caused by an obvious face mask tackle?? I'm sorry but you may say they are in the weakest division, but the Vikings and Packers are returning with the same if not better rosters as last season and will easily be a deadly force. *EDIT* removed the mean comment to cowboy fans, because it isn't fair/nice And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year. I don't believe the Packers are that talented on offense, save for Rodgers (who is fantastic, but still has a couple of fatal flaws, imo... such as holding the ball too long because he, apparently, has difficulty reading D's or refuses to check down), Jennings, and Driver (Btw, while I think Driver is often underrated and not given enough credit, I don't think he's a fabulous WR. He's good, maybe very good, but he's not a game breaker anymore... Jennings is). They suffer from lack of OLine skill (still do, idk who they drafted so maybe it got better?). Their CB's are very good, but their pass rush almost disappeared at points last year, and their safety play was questionable.... until they got that streak of terrible teams, then they looked good... but their D got fucking steamrolled by the first good offense they played (when they played their starters, we all know that week 17 didn't count). And the Cardinals were a team that could be stopped last year. Their offense had a lot of struggles, and a lot of teams were able to slow them down last year. It's possible that they were just firing on all cylinders at the time, but I think it was just the GB D getting exposed. The Vikings were a fantastic team last year though, you're right. And they absolutely outplayed the Saints. They should have had the ball one more time, because IT WASN'T FUCKING PI! I'm still mad about that call. I'm sorry but the bears definitely have the potential to be a good time once again. Maybe not soon but they are definitely not too bad. The same can be said about the Detroit Lions. It's not their fault they are in a division with two much stronger teams like the Packers and Vikings (this means both of these teams get about 4 loses automatically for last season, and probably again for this season). I'm sorry but in my opinion the AFC North & East, and the NFC North & East are the stronger divisions in the NFL. It's been this way for a long time, and I'm sure it will stay this way. Wasn't it just the season before last where the winners of the NFC West and AFC West only had 9-7 or 8-8 records?? I'll slightly say that NFC South is up and down with the quality of their teams, but right now Panthers are bad and Buccaneers are bad (with Falcons being the toss up). Obviously I will repeat this is just my opinion, and also it's the great thing about football (and most sports). It doesn't mean a damn what I think because I'm trying to talk about people whose job it is to work out and make sure they go out to win. So technically any team has the potential to win, but I definitely stick behind my opinion that the NFC/AFC South & West are the "bad" divisions in the NFL at this time (and last season).
The Bears/Lions have potential to be good... but they aren't. The Bears were 7-9 last year, the Lions won, what, two games? Those aren't good teams. One is below average, the other was the second worst team in the league.
NFC East - Giants suck. Philly will suck this year, because they have no proven offensive players left, save for DJack. Skins... who knows? They haven't made nearly enough offensive improvements to be good right away. That leaves Dallas, the only good team in that division.
AFC East - Pats, struggled last year, but had a lot of injuries. They'll be good this year. Jets, top 3 D in the league, no matter how you slice it, with a dominant running game. They're a playoff contender at the least. Miami suddenly found a QB, so they don't have to be gimmicky with the Wildcat anymore, and they got BMarsh. Bills... well, they suck. Still, three playoff contending teams (all three have made the playoffs in the last two years). AFC East is absolutely better overall than the NFC East.
NFC North - Lions are garbage, the Bears are slightly above garbage. The Packers are overrated, imo, just above average. The Vikings are a great team.
AFC North - Bengals are looking better by the minute. Cleveland sucks; Pittsburgh was dealing with tons of injuries last year, still, I think they're on a down slide. Ravens... I don't know what to think of them, honestly. I give the edge to the NFC, because the Vikings are so far superior to any of the AFC North teams, and two of the teams are on shaky legs, imo, in the AFC, with one being absolutely awful. It's close, but NFC is better.
AFC South - Colts are in the Super Bowl running every year, consistently great teams. The Titans/Texans put out formidable teams year in and year out. Neither has really put together an absolutely stellar team, but both are above average, imo. Jacksonville is weird, sometimes they're great, sometimes they're not. Lately, they have been not great more often than great.
NFC South - Saints are streaky, I think. Last year was obviously great for them, but they could crumble this year. Panthers do NOT suck. They had a rough year, yes, but they are not a bad team. They have more talent at QB this year (Moore was very good for them last year), and Delhomme can't give the ball to the other team six times a game anymore, so they could be dangerous. TB sucks, you're absolutely right. ATL is a pretty good team, 9-7 last year, but lost some close ones. It's about as close to a tie as you'll get, imo. Saints/Colts were last year's two best teams, and I think the Panthers/Jags are similar, and ATL/Tennessee and Hou are similar. Still, because there is no bottom of the barrel team in the AFC South, I'd give it to them.
AFC West - Denver is garbage, they'll be worse this year with so many key players gone, and a different DC. KC is crap, I won't elaborate on that. Oakland is worse than KC. The Chargers are vastly overrated, and pretty much get six auto-wins and a pass to the playoffs every year. Still, most people consider them to be a "good" team, so whatever.
NFC West - SF is rising, but still not amazing. St.L still sucks. Arizona fell off the map for sure this year. Seattle could be good if they can stay healthy; there's still talent on the team. With the lack of any truly decent team, I guess it'd have to go to the AFC, but I think it's a pretty close race. You're dealing with six of the worst teams in the league between these two divisions (btw, Denver is absolutely one of the worst, you don't drop 6 of your last 8 if you don't suck).
|
51415 Posts
west coast of america sure do suck at football D=
|
On August 28 2010 17:47 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 09:22 yrba1 wrote:On August 24 2010 06:29 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year. You really think the AFC West is the worst division? Even I'm a Rams fan and I think the NFC West is the currently the worst division in the league. But in other news, the Rams have Stan Kroenke as the majority owner and behind the front office under Chip Rosenbloom was one of the major reasons why we have a 6-42 record for 3 consecutive seasons. I don't see us having any significant victories this season but I do see a bright long term future for them, hopefully out of the top 5 pick. :D Honestly, the NFC West is so bad I forgot about them. But in my breakdown below, you'll see that I don't think the AFC West is that significantly better. I think they're the two worst divisions in the league. Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 23:04 SPYTE wrote:On August 24 2010 06:29 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On August 24 2010 05:59 SPYTE wrote:@SweeTLemonS[TPR] Point understood, but the overall context of what I was trying to say at first was I disliked the decision to get a 3rd running back when that was one of the few strongest positions for the Bills. I assume you were commenting on my sentence about trading/waiting for 2nd round choices, and yes that initial topic was brought up dealing with the Bills and not the Redskins Regardless I agree/understand the necessity of OL picks wherever you find a good choice, because that makes sense compared to what the bills chose. I got that you understand that, I was just pinpointing a particular sentiment about OL picks. I think that, in general, your initial statement is correct. OL can be built in later rounds and through trades, but if there's a dominant LT you take him. I think the Bills best move would have been to grab Claussen or McCoy (I LOVE Colt McCoy, and fuck all the haters that don't). I wasn't trying to harp on your original statement, or even really say it TO YOU, but I used you as a reference point so people understood why I was saying what I was saying (I didn't want to seem like it was coming out of nowhere). I actually understand the logic in their pick. Some GM's believe BPA is ALWAYS the way to go, regardless of needs, and they probably though Spiller was the BPA. I disagree, personally, I think Claussen or Dez Bryant probably had more value, but some GM's see it that way. And just to clarify again, because the way I type (and even speak) often comes off in a way that makes it seem like what I'm saying is fact when it's just my opinion, and then especially in posts it will often seem like I'm directing something at a particular person but I'm not really... What I'm trying to say is that I'm not saying this because I think someone in particular doesn't understand what happened, I'm just giving another, general, viewpoint on the draft. On August 24 2010 06:04 SPYTE wrote:On August 24 2010 05:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On August 23 2010 23:38 SPYTE wrote:On August 22 2010 12:56 Disarray wrote:
I didn't understand our draft at all. Besides not drafting a coach, because we can't, it made no sense. The only position we HAVE depth in, is Running back with Lynch and Jackson, while we desperately need a Quarterback, and what do we do ? Grab the #1 Rb in the draft.. and NEVER grab a QB, while there were a few good ones even late into the draft. I know many are saying bills did it to position themselves to drade Lynch... but so far.... seems like we're stuck with 3 good backs, a good wide reciever, and a QB who hasn't been the same since the cardinals body slammed him. My girlfriends family are huge bills fans, and they have become my second favorite team to follow (I still love my packers too much. Either way, I was really upset at the draft choices for the Bills when they CLEARLY needed a change in the quarterback position. I would rather see them bring back JP Losman then use Edwards or Fitzpatrick since he actually takes some chances with long balls (but maybe that's just me). I was at the preseason opener against the redskins and I was upset at how bad they looked in the QB position as always (and I was pissed at how obnoxious redskins fans are because they are looking like they may actually do well this season). Hopefully this will just be a season to rebuild and get some draft choices for next season -.-'' Now on to mai packers! I don't think we will be able to win the division as easily now that the vikings got favre back, but I'm sure we will be having a great season! We easily have the one of the top 5 quarterbacks in the league right now (imo), and every aspect of our team is looking the better than they have in awhile CANT WAIT!!!! I may have said this in other threads, but I honestly believe that GB was the second most overrated team last year. Weak division, and an incredibly weak schedule in the second half led to a long win streak for them. The only more overrated team, imo, was the Chargers, who had the luxury of playing in the NFL's worst division, and a soft schedule after week 4. Not surprisingly, both teams found early exits in the playoffs. You do realize that the Vikings played the better game versus the champion Saints, but only loss because of the stupid fumbles and silly mistakes (which yes shows weakness, but overall they were the STRONGER team). Also, Packers lost to Cardinals in overtime I believe and the last play was a sack fumble which was caused by an obvious face mask tackle?? I'm sorry but you may say they are in the weakest division, but the Vikings and Packers are returning with the same if not better rosters as last season and will easily be a deadly force. *EDIT* removed the mean comment to cowboy fans, because it isn't fair/nice And you do realize that there are two other teams in that division, both of which were awful last year, right? The worst division was, imo, the AFC West. Oakland + KC + Denver's second half collapse + the overrated Chargers = worst division, imo. I think the North was generally weak, and the Packers benefited from incredible luck in scheduling last year. I don't believe the Packers are that talented on offense, save for Rodgers (who is fantastic, but still has a couple of fatal flaws, imo... such as holding the ball too long because he, apparently, has difficulty reading D's or refuses to check down), Jennings, and Driver (Btw, while I think Driver is often underrated and not given enough credit, I don't think he's a fabulous WR. He's good, maybe very good, but he's not a game breaker anymore... Jennings is). They suffer from lack of OLine skill (still do, idk who they drafted so maybe it got better?). Their CB's are very good, but their pass rush almost disappeared at points last year, and their safety play was questionable.... until they got that streak of terrible teams, then they looked good... but their D got fucking steamrolled by the first good offense they played (when they played their starters, we all know that week 17 didn't count). And the Cardinals were a team that could be stopped last year. Their offense had a lot of struggles, and a lot of teams were able to slow them down last year. It's possible that they were just firing on all cylinders at the time, but I think it was just the GB D getting exposed. The Vikings were a fantastic team last year though, you're right. And they absolutely outplayed the Saints. They should have had the ball one more time, because IT WASN'T FUCKING PI! I'm still mad about that call. I'm sorry but the bears definitely have the potential to be a good time once again. Maybe not soon but they are definitely not too bad. The same can be said about the Detroit Lions. It's not their fault they are in a division with two much stronger teams like the Packers and Vikings (this means both of these teams get about 4 loses automatically for last season, and probably again for this season). I'm sorry but in my opinion the AFC North & East, and the NFC North & East are the stronger divisions in the NFL. It's been this way for a long time, and I'm sure it will stay this way. Wasn't it just the season before last where the winners of the NFC West and AFC West only had 9-7 or 8-8 records?? I'll slightly say that NFC South is up and down with the quality of their teams, but right now Panthers are bad and Buccaneers are bad (with Falcons being the toss up). Obviously I will repeat this is just my opinion, and also it's the great thing about football (and most sports). It doesn't mean a damn what I think because I'm trying to talk about people whose job it is to work out and make sure they go out to win. So technically any team has the potential to win, but I definitely stick behind my opinion that the NFC/AFC South & West are the "bad" divisions in the NFL at this time (and last season). AnalysisTruncated
I've always respected your knowledge of the game but I usually disagree with your mostly caustic analyses. This time however I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment .
|
I agree that the Packers defense leaves something on the table, but their offense is incredible. Rodgers, grant, finley, driver, jennings, that's some damn good skill players
|
On August 28 2010 18:11 GTR wrote:
west coast of america sure do suck at football D=
Isn't it ironic how the worst division in football has still made 2 of the last 5 superbowls?
|
Matt leinart got replaced by derek anderson for the third preseason game...can either of these guys actually start?
|
On August 29 2010 02:03 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 18:11 GTR wrote:
west coast of america sure do suck at football D= Isn't it ironic how the worst division in football has still made 2 of the last 5 superbowls?
Yeah, it is. The thing is, the other three teams fell so hard during the good years of Arizona and Seattle. The Rams have pretty much sucked ass since Martz left, and probably two years before that too. Arizona has had two good seasons. I can't remember the last time the 49ers were relevant. Seattle has had the worst injury streak of any team in the NFL, probably. If anyone on that team could stay healthy they might be decent.
On August 29 2010 02:26 Sanitarium14 wrote:
Matt leinart got replaced by derek anderson for the third preseason game...can either of these guys actually start?
I think DA has more potential than Leinart. He did have that one really great season in Cleveland, which is more than can be said for Leinart. I haven't seen any of his play in Arizona, but I'm sure part of the problem is being a bit gunshy after taking the beatings he took in Cleveland... that team is such a joke.
|
I think my Fiztgerald pick is going to go to shit if either of these terrible QBs are at the helm. Unless they just toss it up to him at every available opportunity. Even if it's a shit pass, which chances are they will be, he still has the ability to get to it.
|
Yeah, Fitz's value has plummeted this season, definitely. I'm willing to bet that I could come up with 10 receivers that will likely have a better year than him. Still, if the QB is even remotely competent by the middle of the season, Fitz could end up being a great pick. I won't take him early for WR though.
|
NFC East - Giants suck. Philly will suck this year, because they have no proven offensive players left, save for DJack. Skins... who knows? They haven't made nearly enough offensive improvements to be good right away. That leaves Dallas, the only good team in that division.
The division is wide open honestly.
Dallas' O-line sucks. Kolb is a question mark. Giants are inconsistent. No one knows how the skins are going to do.
|
On August 29 2010 09:30 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +NFC East - Giants suck. Philly will suck this year, because they have no proven offensive players left, save for DJack. Skins... who knows? They haven't made nearly enough offensive improvements to be good right away. That leaves Dallas, the only good team in that division. The division is wide open honestly. Dallas' O-line sucks. Kolb is a question mark. Giants are inconsistent. No one knows how the skins are going to do.
The Skins are a major wild card out there. I'm pretty excited to see what they do this year, despite knocking them (jokingly, of course, I love McNabb) earlier in the thread. Dallas's O-Line isn't what it was a few years back, but idk if I'd say it sucks. They certainly aren't run blocking like they used to.
|
Hahah, results of my keeper league draft.
QB: Romo
WR: Andre Johnson, Steve Smith (Car), Mike Williams (TB), Bernard Berrian, Arrelious Benn (TB), Brandon Gibson (StL), Anthony Armstrong (Was)
RB: LeSean McCoy, Justin Forsett, Michael Bush, Montario Hardesty
TE: Antonio Gates
Def: Cowboys
K: Gostkowski
Bolds were keepers. Just hoping some of them pan out so I can get a better set of keepers next year, and hopefully start competing again then before AJ gets too old to carry me... :[ Expecting to land a top pick next season!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
