RE:NFL News (Full Version)

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



Message

Andy Lowe -> RE:NFL News (12/9/2007 8:08:15 PM)

[quote="Rob Viking"][quote="Trekgeekscott"]And now Peter King at SI is picking the Steelers to win over the Pats. "Five reasons: 1. A.J. Feeley and Kyle Boller have put up 52 points on the Patriots the last two weeks; Ben Roethlisberger won't maKe the kind of late-game mistakes those two backups did. 2. Brian Westbrook and Willis McGahee have rushed for 190 yards on the Pats the last two weeks. I'm not in love with Willie Parker's recent rushing numbers -- 52, 81 and 87 yards, against three straight sub-.500 teams -- but I think the Patriots will be vulnerable against a power running game. 3. Pats are tired after three straight night games, including the emotional Monday-nighter in frigid Baltimore. Bill Belichick didn't even practice them Wednesday, an incredible rarity with a Sunday game upcoming. 4. Hines Ward's will to win. The dude leads the league in it. 5. Just a gut feeling. The strain of going for perfection seems to be wearing on New England, while Pittsburgh is just bullyish enough not to fear the enormity of Sunday's stage." This is a guy that picked a Mike Tice run team to play in the SB a couple of years ago. and Picked the Saints to go there this year. I smell a Patriots 45, Steelers 10 shellacking coming.[/quote] Some of these guys just to tilt to one side so heavily they completely forget what the other team has done. The Pats have dominated teams at home except the Eagles, the Patriots own the Steelers recently, Brady can beat the blitz as well as anyone, Willie Parker and the O-Line haven't done anything to warrant them having a power run game (still hanging on to past memories), and the Steelers have looked terrible recently scoring 16, 3, & 24 points against teams that the Pats put up 38, 48 & 34 points respectively.[/quote] I think people are forgetting that Pittsburgh's secondary is not very good. I'd take Moss in a jump ball against Polamalu, any day of the week. NE wins this one in a blowout.



Andy Lowe -> RE:NFL News (12/9/2007 8:09:17 PM)

[quote="Rob Viking"][quote="Trekgeekscott"]And now Peter King at SI is picking the Steelers to win over the Pats. "Five reasons: 1. A.J. Feeley and Kyle Boller have put up 52 points on the Patriots the last two weeks; Ben Roethlisberger won't maKe the kind of late-game mistakes those two backups did. 2. Brian Westbrook and Willis McGahee have rushed for 190 yards on the Pats the last two weeks. I'm not in love with Willie Parker's recent rushing numbers -- 52, 81 and 87 yards, against three straight sub-.500 teams -- but I think the Patriots will be vulnerable against a power running game. 3. Pats are tired after three straight night games, including the emotional Monday-nighter in frigid Baltimore. Bill Belichick didn't even practice them Wednesday, an incredible rarity with a Sunday game upcoming. 4. Hines Ward's will to win. The dude leads the league in it. 5. Just a gut feeling. The strain of going for perfection seems to be wearing on New England, while Pittsburgh is just bullyish enough not to fear the enormity of Sunday's stage." This is a guy that picked a Mike Tice run team to play in the SB a couple of years ago. and Picked the Saints to go there this year. I smell a Patriots 45, Steelers 10 shellacking coming.[/quote] Some of these guys just to tilt to one side so heavily they completely forget what the other team has done. The Pats have dominated teams at home except the Eagles, the Patriots own the Steelers recently, Brady can beat the blitz as well as anyone, Willie Parker and the O-Line haven't done anything to warrant them having a power run game (still hanging on to past memories), and the Steelers have looked terrible recently scoring 16, 3, & 24 points against teams that the Pats put up 38, 48 & 34 points respectively.[/quote] I think people are forgetting that Pittsburgh's secondary is not very good. Balt and Philly both have pretty good secondary people.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (12/9/2007 8:29:36 PM)

Having quit fantasy football this year, I did not realize how truly terrible a season Rudi Johnson is having. 140 carries at 2.8 yards per carry! WOW!



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (12/9/2007 8:57:49 PM)

Houston had no QB that year. Williams is a good player but you can't win without a QB. Young will be a great QB.



David Levine -> RE:NFL News (12/9/2007 9:02:43 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]Young will be a great QB.[/quote] He may. He may not. I like Vince a lot, but he's no sure thing.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 2:11:33 AM)

[quote="djskilbr"]Having quit fantasy football this year, I did not realize how truly terrible a season Rudi Johnson is having. 140 carries at 2.8 yards per carry! WOW![/quote] I'm amazed how bad that team has been this year. Far more potential than they are showing.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 2:37:54 AM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"]Having quit fantasy football this year, I did not realize how truly terrible a season Rudi Johnson is having. 140 carries at 2.8 yards per carry! WOW![/quote] I'm amazed how bad that team has been this year. Far more potential than they are showing.[/quote] No kidding Craig. Carson has SO much talent. And their WR's too. It astounds me how Marvin Lewis is still coaching there. He should have been gone LAST year. His staple is supposed to be defense; where has that been?



Steve Lentz -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 4:19:57 AM)

Andy, you had that Pat game figured out pretty well. Steeler secondary looked bad.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 5:09:37 AM)

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"]Having quit fantasy football this year, I did not realize how truly terrible a season Rudi Johnson is having. 140 carries at 2.8 yards per carry! WOW![/quote] I'm amazed how bad that team has been this year. Far more potential than they are showing.[/quote] No kidding Craig. Carson has SO much talent. And their WR's too. It astounds me how Marvin Lewis is still coaching there. He should have been gone LAST year. His staple is supposed to be defense; where has that been?[/quote] Notice how often that happens with highly touted coordinators who become coaches? Or maybe it's just the curse of the AFC North. Lewis has no D. Billick has no O. Crennel has no D.



Andy Lowe -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 5:16:48 AM)

So last week, last year's boy wonder Peyton makes a stupid call. This week it was Mang"inous's" turn. The Jets are down by 5 with 1:54 left. They have 4th and 10 on the Cleveland 20 yd line. First off, they go for the FG, to put them down by 2 as opposed to going for it on 4th down. They do have 3 timeouts left, which I can live with a little bit, but assuming they kick the ball off as normal pin Cleveland back make them punt and get good field position........Nuggent has a cannon leg for a final FG. But to make things worse.......they go for an onside kick????? This makes no sense. So if you hold Clevlend, there's a good chance your going to get the ball back inside your own 10. So Mangini thinks they have a better chance of returning an onside kick, than converting on 4th and 10. They already got 1 onside kick, so the chance of a second in a row was small. Even if you go for it and Cleveland get's the ball, they will run 3 times in a row and you should get it in good field position. The whole sequence just made no sense to me.



Andy Lowe -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 5:19:40 AM)

[quote="Steve Lentz"]Andy, you had that Pat game figured out pretty well. Steeler secondary looked bad.[/quote] To have a plan in one thing, but you better have the players to carry out the plan ;)



Steve Lentz -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:38:10 AM)

Owens was very quiet against Detoit. Romo continued to impress. Brady, Manning, and Romo are simply at a different level.



djskillz -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 7:12:23 AM)

[quote="Steve Lentz"]Owens was very quiet against Detoit. Romo continued to impress. Brady, Manning, and Romo are simply at a different level.[/quote] I was about the biggest Romo proponent on this board before the season (mostly due to inside info/bias mind you) but he is even outperforming my expectations at this point. Wow. As for those coaches Craig, I wonder if it's almost a reverse trend. Like former coordinators care about "their side" of the ball so they don't get good coordinators for that side, not wanting to cede control. But then being that they have to be the head coach they don't have the time/effort necessary to put into that side of the ball. Just a thought.



Lynn G. -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 4:03:38 PM)

Of the teams at the top, Indy is the only one that has suffered big injuries at significant positions. None of the quarterbacks has been out and none of the key playmakers has missed time. No question that injuries can make a big difference in a team's season. Can you imagine any of the top teams having to start their second and third string quarterback like the Vikings have for several games?



Steve Lentz -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 4:28:03 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]Of the teams at the top, Indy is the only one that has suffered big injuries at significant positions. None of the quarterbacks has been out and none of the key playmakers has missed time. No question that injuries can make a big difference in a team's season. Can you imagine any of the top teams having to start their second and third string quarterback like the Vikings have for several games?[/quote] I hope injuries make a big difference in our next 2 games with both the Bears and Redskins missing their starting QB's.



Lynn G. -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 4:55:29 PM)

It's certainly our turn to be on the other side of the injury bug.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 5:18:40 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"] As for those coaches Craig, I wonder if it's almost a reverse trend. Like former coordinators care about "their side" of the ball so they don't get good coordinators for that side, not wanting to cede control. But then being that they have to be the head coach they don't have the time/effort necessary to put into that side of the ball. Just a thought.[/quote] I think there may be something to that. The coordinators who do well when they are HC, stay in their area of expertise and hire a solid coord to cover the other side of the ball. Too many of them try and dabble part way in both sides and thus reduce their effectiveness and lose that edge of what made them good in the first place. Wade Phillips finally got that after several failed HC stints when he stayed out of the offenses way and focused on defense as a HC.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:26:45 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"] As for those coaches Craig, I wonder if it's almost a reverse trend. Like former coordinators care about "their side" of the ball so they don't get good coordinators for that side, not wanting to cede control. But then being that they have to be the head coach they don't have the time/effort necessary to put into that side of the ball. Just a thought.[/quote] I think there may be something to that. The coordinators who do well when they are HC, stay in their area of expertise and hire a solid coord to cover the other side of the ball. Too many of them try and dabble part way in both sides and thus reduce their effectiveness and lose that edge of what made them good in the first place. Wade Phillips finally got that after several failed HC stints when he stayed out of the offenses way and focused on defense as a HC.[/quote] I think this is only a recent trend. If you go back to the 80s and 90s that was NOT the case. Joe Gibbs - OC from the Chargers built a great offense in Washington Buddy Ryan - Bears DC built a great D in Philly Bill Parcels - DC and LBs coach before becoming HC (how were his LBs?) Bill Belichick - DC created very good defenses as HC



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:34:42 PM)

Vince Young sucked major wind yesterday. I know most folks think he is a bad QB and may not develop. But I remain convinced that thi offseason, with $40M in cap space, the Titans will go get him some WRs (like Stallworth) and he will be a solid QB again next year. Jay Cutler may end up being the best of the group as he is starting to mix in more good games than bad. LOOKING DOWN THE STRETCH The Giants and Seahawks are two of the weakest 9-4 teams ever. The Eagles stink and almost beat them both. If the Vikings hang on to the 6th seed I look for them to beat Seattle in Seattle in the first round and then lose to Dallas in a game closer than expected. I thought Terry Glenn would be back by now. If he comes back healthy for the playoffs I would like Dallas by 10 over GB. As it is now, I would take the Cowpukes by 4. Romo at home is going to be tough to beat. Amazing that the Saints are still not out of it without Bush and McAlister. GB will SMOKE the TB-NYG winner. Calvin Johnson had another ho-hum day, 5 catches for 51 yards and 0 TDs. I am starting to wonder if he IS too big to be a great WR in the NFL. Perhaps if he develops more strength he can be the next Burress. Actually I think with experience and more reps he will be the next Terrell Owens (on the field). I think there will be an upset in the AFC and the CG will NOT be Colts-Pats. I think Jax may upset someone - and it could even be the Pats.



Guest -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:37:48 PM)

Actually, I think Jacksonville is the only team that I think could possibly beat NE.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:45:39 PM)

I think that the Colts might be able to if they were ever able to get Harrison back near 100% You can't draw much though from the Ravens game since McAlister and Rolle didn't even play.
quote:

BALTIMORE -- Don't look now, but the Indianapolis Colts, 44-20 winners over the Baltimore Ravens here Sunday night, own the most favorable spot on the AFC playoff grid. You ask, "What about New England? Aren't they undefeated? Don't they stand to have home-field advantage throughout the postseason?'' Yes, but . . . This whole pursuit of the perfect season is going to wear on them, physically and mentally, just the way it wore on the Colts in 2005. If you assume that Patriots coach Bill Belichick will keep playing his starters in Games 15 and 16 -- and that's my assumption -- his team will have to deal with the pressure and the attention that comes with the territory. The Colts, meanwhile, are comfortably and quietly settling into the No. 2 seed, too far back to catch New England, too far ahead to lose that spot to Pittsburgh and Jacksonville -- barring some kind of calamity. One more victory, presumably in Oakland on Sunday, and Colts coach Tony Dungy will be able to rest some guys, or at least continue to be cautious in the handling of Marvin Harrison, Ryan Diem and others.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712100372



Trekgeekscott -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:46:23 PM)

[quote="Pete C"]Actually, I think Jacksonville is the only team that I think could possibly beat NE.[/quote] I don't. Colts are trying very hard right now to prove to everyone that they are not irrelevant. And they very nearly beat NE when up to that point, no one even played them close. And that was without Marvin Harrison and Dallas Clark for a good portion of the game. Jax can beat them, but they tend to fold in big games. SD is not by any stretch out of possibilities either. The Chargers are not the same team today that lost to the Pats in week 2. A steady dose of Ladanian Tomlinson could actually beat the Pats... Any team that runs the ball well should be able to stand toe to toe with the Pats, maybe not win, but at least compete. They are not unbeatable. And I can see what the Patriots did to the Rams in 2001 happening to them. Some upstart team comes in, with little hope of winning and pulls off an upset. We shall see, but I don't think that Jax is the only team that can beat the Pats, as the Eagles and Ravens both showed by nearly beating them.



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:51:13 PM)

I am not buying the Chargers at all. Who have they beat? They squeeked by the Colts at home when Indy was missing half their players. They had to go to OT to beat a fading Titans team. Their other wins are against chumps like KC Plus they will be on the road



John Childress -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:52:26 PM)

The Pats are definitely vulnerable. They have trouble stopping the run and if you can play physcial on Moss and Brady they become human.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:NFL News (12/10/2007 6:56:21 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]I am not buying the Chargers at all. Who have they beat? They squeeked by the Colts at home when Indy was missing half their players. They had to go to OT to beat a fading Titans team. Their other wins are against chumps like KC Plus they will be on the road[/quote] I never said it would be easy. They are running the ball much better now. Their d (if you take the Vikings game out) is usually pretty stout against the run... Any given Sunday... I am not saying that the Chargers are a slam dunk with a really good shot to beat the Pats...But they do have a slim chance if they play their best. They probably wouldn't beat the Pats, but they aren't without hope.



Page: <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode