RE:NFL News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Lynn G. -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 5:34:33 PM)

That was how it was reported on ESPN yesterday.



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 5:48:19 PM)

I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap C) The Patriots almost miraculous avoidance of significant injuries this year to key offensive players Again, I'm not saying they suck, but how much of this 10-0 record and the high scores are simply because the league isn't that good this year. Just because the Patriots are the "best" this year, doesn't mean they are that good, does it? And I agree with (I think it was) JC who said if Harrison and Dallas Clark were healthy, no way the Patriots beat the Colts in Indy earlier this year. I watched that game and Harrison and Clark would have made all the difference in the world.



Guest -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 6:04:12 PM)

[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap [/quote] ***************************************************** I just mentioned this on another thread but I just don't agree with people that think that QB play is so awful this year. Right now there are 11 QB's with a passer rating above 90, 4 of them are above 100. Last season there were 8 QB's above 90, and only one above 100. "Good" relative to what? Brady Roethlisberger Romo Garrard (low number of attempts) Favre Garcia Kitna (believe it or not) McNabb Anderson Hasselbeck Schaub Manning (down year, but you know he's good) Palmer (same as above) IMO, all of these guys are playing good.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 6:21:03 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="John Childress"]If the refs call the game fairly and Harrison is healthy the Colts win that game going away if Moss isn't on the Patriots.[/quote] I wholeheartedly disagree.[/quote]Without Harrison they barely won The Colts def win if Moss doesn't play



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 6:24:17 PM)

I agree Bart People are revising history to show that the Pats blew them out. The reality is without Harrison they lost by 4 with Brady having his worst game of the year (2 INTs). You tell me Harrison isn't worth 4 points? Worse, he claims the Pats still win that game without Moss! No way on this planet.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 6:26:45 PM)

[quote="Pete C"][quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap [/quote] ***************************************************** I just mentioned this on another thread but I just don't agree with people that think that QB play is so awful this year. Right now there are 11 QB's with a passer rating above 90, 4 of them are above 100. Last season there were 8 QB's above 90, and only one above 100. "Good" relative to what? Brady Roethlisberger Romo Garrard (low number of attempts) Favre Garcia Kitna (believe it or not) McNabb Anderson Hasselbeck Schaub Manning (down year, but you know he's good) Palmer (same as above) IMO, all of these guys are playing good.[/quote] Schaub isn't looking that good...McNabb certainly is not his normal self so he being "good" is debateable, Garrard should not be on this list after missing all those games. But quite frankly, i want to see the Bart Starr Fan eat his Packer cap...



Trekgeekscott -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 6:29:09 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]I agree Bart People are revising history to show that the Pats blew them out. The reality is without Harrison they lost by 4 with Brady having his worst game of the year (2 INTs). You tell me Harrison isn't worth 4 points? Worse, he claims the Pats still win that game without Moss! No way on this planet.[/quote] With the Pats down by 14 in the 4th quarter, Brady threw to or in Moss' direction on 9 straight plays...NINE. Including the 55 yard bomb that put them in position to score the first of two TDs that eventually won them the game. Without Moss IMHO, the Pats offense would suddenly become average. And if Harrison were healthy and in that game, There is no way they beat the Colts...even with Moss.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:30:45 PM)

[quote="Danimal"]Chargers, Bengals, Ravens could be interested in Jason Garrett Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 9:22 am EST Dallas Cowboys offensive coordinator Jason Garrett has emerged as a candidate for a head coaching job in the NFL. According to the Dallas Morning News there are three potential openings that might interest Garrett. The San Diego Chargers are the most attractive with all the offensive skills the team has. There is also the Cincinnati Bengals, who do have Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson. And finally, the Baltimore Ravens, who need an offensive-minded coach. Source: Dallas Morning News[/quote] The problem is Garrett will be taken before he is ready. He really could use another year or two at the OC level. Look at Tomlin - clearly he has the goods to be a strong HC but I bet if he had a couple more years of maturation the Steel Men wouldn't struggle so badly on the road.



Guest -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:30:58 PM)

A little more on the myth about bad QB play this year: In 2004, all QB's combined for an average passer rating of 82.8, that was the highest ever in the history of the league. This season all QB's have a combined average passer rating of 82.6.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:33:11 PM)

quote:

Terrell Owens and Randy Moss just cleaned the clocks of the Washington Redskins and Buffalo Bills, catching four touchdown passes apiece Sunday. Here is a possible solution when dealing with guys like Owens and Moss: Cover them! Man-on-man, that is. Perhaps manly-man-on-manly-man. For most of the two contests in which these gentlemen ran wild, the Washington and Buffalo defenses were in some version of Cover 2, meaning zone, meaning no one had the specific responsibility to stick with Owens or Moss. In a Cover 2, the cornerbacks watch the short zone for outs and curls and the safeties watch the deep zone. The Cover 2 is often effective. Its weakness is that no one is specifically assigned to the other team's best receiver. Just as, when splitting a large-group dinner check, each diner might find it convenient to assume the next person will take care of the tip, in a Cover 2, each defensive back might find it convenient to think, "The safety will get him." The result is letting the other team's best receiver fly down the field unguarded. TMQ Cheat Sheet Gregg Easterbrook on ... • Stats of the week • Cheerleader of the week • Sweet/sour plays of the week • The latest Hollywood offering • Adventures in officiating • Fortune favoring the bold • Hidden plays • Thinking globally, parking locally • The running up the score watch • Obscure college scores With Dallas leading 21-16 and the game tense, Owens ran an "up" against a Washington soft-zone look. Redskins cornerback Shawn Springs stood there and watched Owens fly past; Springs covered no one, and Owens caught a 52-yard touchdown, providing the game's winning margin. With New England leading 7-0 at Buffalo, Moss ran an "up" against a Bills soft-zone look. Buffalo cornerback Terrence McGee stood there and watched Moss fly past; McGee covered no one, and Moss caught a 43-yard touchdown, sparking what would become a rout by halftime. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens were not covered by anyone going deep. Moss' touchdown was especially ridiculous because the Bills rushed only two on that play. Nine defenders dropped into coverage, yet no one guarded Randy Moss going deep.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071120&sportCat=nfl



So.Mn.Fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:33:27 PM)

[quote="Pete C"]A little more on the myth about bad QB play this year: In 2004, all QB's combined for an average passer rating of 82.8, that was the highest ever in the history of the league. This season all QB's have a combined average passer rating of 82.6.[/quote] Brady's 9000 this year probably skews that a little bit. :lol: Sorry, carry on. :whistling:



Guest -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:35:31 PM)

[quote="So.Mn.Fan"][quote="Pete C"]A little more on the myth about bad QB play this year: In 2004, all QB's combined for an average passer rating of 82.8, that was the highest ever in the history of the league. This season all QB's have a combined average passer rating of 82.6.[/quote] Brady's 9000 this year probably skews that a little bit. :lol: Sorry, carry on. :whistling:[/quote] ******************************************* Then again, TJack and Alex Smith certainly have done their part in bringing it back down.



Guest -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:38:26 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]
quote:

Terrell Owens and Randy Moss just cleaned the clocks of the Washington Redskins and Buffalo Bills, catching four touchdown passes apiece Sunday. Here is a possible solution when dealing with guys like Owens and Moss: Cover them! Man-on-man, that is. Perhaps manly-man-on-manly-man. For most of the two contests in which these gentlemen ran wild, the Washington and Buffalo defenses were in some version of Cover 2, meaning zone, meaning no one had the specific responsibility to stick with Owens or Moss. In a Cover 2, the cornerbacks watch the short zone for outs and curls and the safeties watch the deep zone. The Cover 2 is often effective. Its weakness is that no one is specifically assigned to the other team's best receiver. Just as, when splitting a large-group dinner check, each diner might find it convenient to assume the next person will take care of the tip, in a Cover 2, each defensive back might find it convenient to think, "The safety will get him." The result is letting the other team's best receiver fly down the field unguarded. TMQ Cheat Sheet Gregg Easterbrook on ... • Stats of the week • Cheerleader of the week • Sweet/sour plays of the week • The latest Hollywood offering • Adventures in officiating • Fortune favoring the bold • Hidden plays • Thinking globally, parking locally • The running up the score watch • Obscure college scores With Dallas leading 21-16 and the game tense, Owens ran an "up" against a Washington soft-zone look. Redskins cornerback Shawn Springs stood there and watched Owens fly past; Springs covered no one, and Owens caught a 52-yard touchdown, providing the game's winning margin. With New England leading 7-0 at Buffalo, Moss ran an "up" against a Bills soft-zone look. Buffalo cornerback Terrence McGee stood there and watched Moss fly past; McGee covered no one, and Moss caught a 43-yard touchdown, sparking what would become a rout by halftime. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens were not covered by anyone going deep. Moss' touchdown was especially ridiculous because the Bills rushed only two on that play. Nine defenders dropped into coverage, yet no one guarded Randy Moss going deep.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071120&sportCat=nfl ************************************************************************* Not having Sean Taylor really hurt Washington, IMO.



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:45:53 PM)

I've never felt that the QB rating was that good an evaluative tool, personally. I respect the stats you pulled out, though, however having watched lots of games this year (more than usual), I simply can't say that many QBs impressed me. Maybe 12 good ones this year (out of 32 teams). And the bad ones just flat out suck. A lack of consistency is the biggest thing or, if not that, the Dilfer factor, i.e. QBs are asked to only "manage the game" not win it with plays. Garcia is the ultimate "manager." Not saying he's bad, but he's not in the same category as a Brady, Peyton Manning, Favre or Romo. Those guys can all take over a game and win it against the odds. Still, maybe I better see what kind of seasonings go with my hat, just in case I have to make a meal out of it. :shock: Of course, I also think the WRs this year also suck for the most part. I've never seen so many dropped passes. These guys are paid millions of dollars to catch a ball and can't do it. Unbelieveable.



David Levine -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:46:10 PM)

[quote="Steve Lentz"][quote="Duane Sampson"]Ray Lewis Criticizes Call on Dawson's FG Tue Nov 20, 2007 The Carroll County Times reports Baltimore Ravens MLB Ray Lewis departed the locker room after Sunday's 33-30 overtime loss to the Browns without conducting interviews, reserving his comments for his weekly radio show on which he's paid to appear. Lewis didn't criticize the Ravens this time, but did have some harsh words for the officiating in light of Browns PK Phil Dawson's controversial, game-tying field goal at the end of regulation. "I don't agree with the call at all," Lewis said. "I think it was an embarrassment on the league the way the total thing went down. This is a professional business and you send a team in the locker room and the score says, 'final score.' If there's a mistake made, send a letter. You don't put men out there at risk. There were at least 15, 20 guys half-dressed. There were guys in the shower. I'm just sitting there saying, 'Is this really real?' It kind of disturbs football. I think we get a lot of bad breaks."[/quote] Ray the kick was good. Get a grip.[/quote] You think Ray would be fine with the Ravens having the same thing happen to them and then get an "apology letter" in the mail?



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:47:16 PM)

[quote="So.Mn.Fan"][quote="Pete C"]A little more on the myth about bad QB play this year: In 2004, all QB's combined for an average passer rating of 82.8, that was the highest ever in the history of the league. This season all QB's have a combined average passer rating of 82.6.[/quote] Brady's 9000 this year probably skews that a little bit. :lol: Sorry, carry on. :whistling:[/quote] Testify! :D



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:50:03 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]I agree Bart People are revising history to show that the Pats blew them out. The reality is without Harrison they lost by 4 with Brady having his worst game of the year (2 INTs). You tell me Harrison isn't worth 4 points? Worse, he claims the Pats still win that game without Moss! No way on this planet.[/quote] And don't forget that Clark was out too. Clark by himself would have made a difference as he presents all kind of match up problems for teams. Arguably, when healthy, I'd take Clark over either Gates or Gonzalez at tight end. The guy makes some great catches, and almost always holds onto the ball after taking vicious hits. Thrown in Harrison, one of the best ever possession receivers in NFL history and, yes, the Colts win by at least 14 points.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:50:33 PM)

[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap C) The Patriots almost miraculous avoidance of significant injuries this year to key offensive players Again, I'm not saying they suck, but how much of this 10-0 record and the high scores are simply because the league isn't that good this year. Just because the Patriots are the "best" this year, doesn't mean they are that good, does it? And I agree with (I think it was) JC who said if Harrison and Dallas Clark were healthy, no way the Patriots beat the Colts in Indy earlier this year. I watched that game and Harrison and Clark would have made all the difference in the world.[/quote] Incidentally, this is why I don't think the Packers are very good.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:51:59 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]I agree Bart People are revising history to show that the Pats blew them out. The reality is without Harrison they lost by 4 with Brady having his worst game of the year (2 INTs). You tell me Harrison isn't worth 4 points? Worse, he claims the Pats still win that game without Moss! No way on this planet.[/quote] We just disagree here. I don't think adding Harrison and going from Moss to Stallworth (who, while no Moss, would have done very well himself in that scenario) is worth 150 bogus penalty yards AND 4 points.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 7:55:22 PM)

If you think Stallworth is even close to Moss' league then you haven't been paying attention.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 8:07:19 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]If you think Stallworth is even close to Moss' league then you haven't been paying attention.[/quote] JC, I'm certainly not. But numbers-wise he still would be able to do quite a few good things in Moss' role. He's no Moss, but when healthy, he's not chop liver either.



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 8:11:27 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap C) The Patriots almost miraculous avoidance of significant injuries this year to key offensive players Again, I'm not saying they suck, but how much of this 10-0 record and the high scores are simply because the league isn't that good this year. Just because the Patriots are the "best" this year, doesn't mean they are that good, does it? And I agree with (I think it was) JC who said if Harrison and Dallas Clark were healthy, no way the Patriots beat the Colts in Indy earlier this year. I watched that game and Harrison and Clark would have made all the difference in the world.[/quote] Incidentally, this is why I don't think the Packers are very good.[/quote] Umm, not sure which part of my post is the "why" you refer to, unless you mean that the Pack getting to 9-1 is more because the rest of the league sucks so bad. If that's the case, then the Cowboys, Colts, Steelers, and Patriots aren't that good either. Other than the Patriots winning one more game and scoring a shitload of points more than everyone else (which, by the way, is a source of debate ranging across the whole NFL consistently) how different are the Patriots from the 'Boys or the Pack? They aren't. Brady is playing lights out, and Moss is having a great year, but that's it. But the combined records of the teams faced by the Pats, the Cowboys and the Pack is almost identical (I can get the numbers for you if you want). And what would it take for you to think they are, at a minimum, the second best team in the NFC? Or is the NFC so bad that it doesn't matter if they go 15-1, that even if they make it to the Super Bowl, you'll think they're only average? Because there are plenty of sucky AFC teams too (hello, Miami?). May I remind you that the Packers are the youngest team in the NFL, starting a number of 2nd year guys (Jennings, Hawk, those 2 OL guys), at least one rookie on offense (Jones) and using a first string RB who was salvaged from the Giants' practice squad. Being 9-1 with those guys is pretty good, IMO.



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 8:17:12 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]If you think Stallworth is even close to Moss' league then you haven't been paying attention.[/quote] Hell, at this point this year, I wouldn't take Stallworth over Driver or Jennings, for that matter. Moss is the deep threat that the defensive coordinators fear so much that they game plan for him which makes it easier for Brady to find everyone else open, plus Moss' talent is such that even double covered you can throw to him. Take him off of NE and, as much as it pains me to admit it, NE loses at least 2 games (Dallas and Indy). Put Moss on Dallas, Green Bay or the Colts, and any of those teams are undefeated and the odds on SB favorite, provided he plays with the same intensity (which is not a given, BTW...somehow Brady and Bellichik have tamed him and, again I hate to admit, but he has become rejuvenated...hats off to whoever got him turned around. I, for one, didn't think it was possible).



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 8:22:33 PM)

[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"][quote="John Childress"]If you think Stallworth is even close to Moss' league then you haven't been paying attention.[/quote] Hell, at this point this year, I wouldn't take Stallworth over Driver or Jennings, for that matter. Moss is the deep threat that the defensive coordinators fear so much that they game plan for him which makes it easier for Brady to find everyone else open, plus Moss' talent is such that even double covered you can throw to him. Take him off of NE and, as much as it pains me to admit it, NE loses at least 2 games (Dallas and Indy). Put Moss on Dallas, Green Bay or the Colts, and any of those teams are undefeated and the odds on SB favorite, provided he plays with the same intensity (which is not a given, BTW...somehow Brady and Bellichik have tamed him and, again I hate to admit, but he has become rejuvenated...hats off to whoever got him turned around. I, for one, didn't think it was possible).[/quote] JC has said it before and I'll echo it again: Moss is the single biggest difference maker I have ever seen in the NFL.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (11/20/2007 8:34:20 PM)

[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"][quote="djskilbr"][quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap C) The Patriots almost miraculous avoidance of significant injuries this year to key offensive players Again, I'm not saying they suck, but how much of this 10-0 record and the high scores are simply because the league isn't that good this year. Just because the Patriots are the "best" this year, doesn't mean they are that good, does it? And I agree with (I think it was) JC who said if Harrison and Dallas Clark were healthy, no way the Patriots beat the Colts in Indy earlier this year. I watched that game and Harrison and Clark would have made all the difference in the world.[/quote] Incidentally, this is why I don't think the Packers are very good.[/quote] Umm, not sure which part of my post is the "why" you refer to, unless you mean that the Pack getting to 9-1 is more because the rest of the league sucks so bad. If that's the case, then the Cowboys, Colts, Steelers, and Patriots aren't that good either. Other than the Patriots winning one more game and scoring a shitload of points more than everyone else (which, by the way, is a source of debate ranging across the whole NFL consistently) how different are the Patriots from the 'Boys or the Pack? They aren't. Brady is playing lights out, and Moss is having a great year, but that's it. But the combined records of the teams faced by the Pats, the Cowboys and the Pack is almost identical (I can get the numbers for you if you want). And what would it take for you to think they are, at a minimum, the second best team in the NFC? Or is the NFC so bad that it doesn't matter if they go 15-1, that even if they make it to the Super Bowl, you'll think they're only average? Because there are plenty of sucky AFC teams too (hello, Miami?). May I remind you that the Packers are the youngest team in the NFL, starting a number of 2nd year guys (Jennings, Hawk, those 2 OL guys), at least one rookie on offense (Jones) and using a first string RB who was salvaged from the Giants' practice squad. Being 9-1 with those guys is pretty good, IMO.[/quote] Well that IS "why" to me. I think the league is SO bad right now. I actually agree that the Packers are marginally the second best team in the NFC. I just still don't think that that's particularly good is all. It's a very marginal/close league except for a few teams. And I do think Dallas, while a HUGE notch below the Pats, is a HUGE notch ABOVE the Pack. We will see shortly.



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode