What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Teams that can win the Super Bowl (1 Viewer)

H.K.

H.K.

Footballguy
Some of the teams listed with a legitimate shot will not even make the playoffs, while some listed as having no chance will make the post-season. However, temas make the playoffs each year that won't advance, so post-season play is not a criteria. This list is based on teams that have enough talent/experience/coaching to hoist the trophy.

Teams with a chance:

Miami - Lots of weapons, decent defense...dark horse but you never know

New England - As long as they have Brady and Bellichek they have a chance

Baltimore - McNair gives Billick a QB to work with, long shot, but not impossible

Cincinnati - Tons of talent, tough HC

Pittsburgh - No need to explain this one.

Colts - Can't blow home field again

Jaguars - On the bubble, but tough Defense and Offense could be potent.

Panthers - NFC favorite

Seahawks - NFC favorite 1-A

Giants - Unlikely, but possible

Bucs - Simms must emerge

Cowboys - Parcells is the only reason they make this list

Teams with no shot:

Bears - No QB, no chance. Don't care how good the D is.

Broncos - Do you see Plummer winning it all? Me neither.

Falcons - Too soft on defense, Vick too unreliable

Cardinals - Not with their o-line.

Rams - Fragile QB, new HC = no chance

Redskins - Brunell will turn into a pumpkin

Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.

Packers - Seriously.

Lions - see Packers

Vikings - No weapons on offense. None.

49ers - :yucky:

Saints - They are the Saints...'nuff said

Bills - :X

Jets - :X :X

Chiefs - AFC = no playoffs

Chargers - First year starting QB with zero experience

Browns - Other teams in their division way too talented.

Texans - No chance.

Raiders - Complete mess.

Titans - See Raiders.

There you have it. Only twelve teams have a legitimate shot, the list will be whittled down as the season progresses, too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K. said:
Some of the teams listed with a legitimate shot will not even make the playoffs, while some listed as having no chance will make the post-season. However, temas make the playoffs each year that won't advance, so post-season play is not a criteria. This list is based on teams that have enough talent/experience/coaching to hoist the trophy.

Teams with a chance:

Miami - Lots of weapons, decent defense...dark horse but you never know

New England - As long as they have Brady and Bellichek they have a chance

Baltimore - McNair gives Billick a QB to work with, long shot, but not impossible

Cincinnati - Tons of talent, tough HC

Pittsburgh - No need to explain this one.

Colts - Can't blow home field again

Jaguars - On the bubble, but tough Defense and Offense could be potent.

Panthers - NFC favorite

Seahawks - NFC favorite 1-A

Giants - Unlikely, but possible

Bucs - Simms must emerge

Cowboys - Parcells is the only reason they make this list

Teams with no shot:

Bears - No QB, no chance. Don't care how good the D is.

Falcons - Too soft on defense, Vick too unreliable

Cardinals - Not with their o-line.

Rams - Fragile QB, new HC = no chance

Redskins - Brunell will turn into a pumpkin

Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.

Packers - Seriously.

Lions - see Packers

Vikings - No weapons on offense. None.

49ers - :yucky:

Saints - They are the Saints...'nuff said

Bills - :X

Jets - :X :X

Chiefs - AFC = no playoffs

Chargers - First year starting QB with zero experience

Browns - Other teams in their division way too talented.

Texans - No chance.

Raiders - Complete mess.

There you have it. Only twelve teams have a legitimate shot, the list will be whittled down as the season progresses, too.
Click to expand...
Quote for prosperity's sake
 
I can agree with just about all of that except the Bears.

If Griese takes over, the team will be one of the favorites in the NFC in my opinion, second probably only to Carolina.

 
Steelers4Life said:
I can agree with just about all of that except the Bears.If Griese takes over, the team will be one of the favorites in the NFC in my opinion, second probably only to Carolina.
Click to expand...
I factored him in. Even if he starts, he won't be good enough to win them the Super Bowl.
 
You're missing 2 teams. One of them is the Broncos, who clearly have a chance after making it to the AFC championship last year.

BTW, if Miami has a chance, then so does Kansas City, San Diego, Washington, and Chicago.

 
nfc

top tier

carolina

philly

seattle - looked much nastier on defense . julian peterson looked huge in the game i saw . easy schedule

possible

dallas

washington

giants brutal schedule = 8-8 . bucs and falcons stink this year imo . bears no .

afc

top tier - i would be amazed if not one of these represent afc :

pats

broncos

colts

steelers

i dont see anyone , baybe bengals but i doubt it chalenging . they have a brutal schedule . jags will be around 8-8 . i think the wilcards are phins and raiders with outside shots .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintArnold said:
You're missing 2 teams. One of them is the Broncos, who clearly have a chance after making it to the AFC championship last year.BTW, if Miami has a chance, then so does Kansas City, San Diego, Washington, and Chicago.
Click to expand...
I missed the Titans, too. I added both to the "no chance" category.
 
doughboydeluxe said:
H.K. said:
Steelers4Life said:
I can agree with just about all of that except the Bears.If Griese takes over, the team will be one of the favorites in the NFC in my opinion, second probably only to Carolina.
Click to expand...
I factored him in. Even if he starts, he won't be good enough to win them the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
But Simms and Leftwich are?
Click to expand...
Simms and Leftwich have more weapons at their disposal. Also, Griese is not a leader at the NFL level. Not saying Simms and Leftwich are, but they are off to a much better start than Griese ever was. Don't forget about how good those Denver teams were that he ruined.
 
Running game and defense wins, in the regular season, playoffs, SB. Teams that can do both have a shot and for those reasons I think SD and Chicago have a decent shot at the SB.

Rivers doesn't need to carry the team he needs to manage the game. He has the best RB and best TE in the game at his disposal and they have one of the best run stopping defenses in the game.

Chicago has a shot because they will have a top defense and should have a decent running game. They most assuredly win their division and once you are in the playoffs anything can happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Banger said:
I think SD and Chicago have a decent shot at the SB. Rivers doesn't need to carry the team he needs to manage the game. He has the best RB and best TE in the game at his disposal and they have one of the best run stopping defenses in the game.Chicago has a shot because they will have a top defense and should have a decent running game. They most assuredly win their division and once you are in the playoffs anything can happen.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about making it to the Super Bowl. I am talking about winning it.As for Rivers, "managing" a game is my favorite pet peeve saying for a QB. It takes experience to read a coverage and throw a ball away or take a sack instead of forcing a throw. "Managing" a game is something that occurs only when a QB has the discipline, experience, and ability to know what to do at the right time. If it were that easy, everyone would do it.Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed.
 
Nice thread. Obviously, there will be some disagreement, but if you told me to choose between the Ravens or Jags and the Redskins or Eagles, I'd take the NFC duo far and away over Baltimore and Jax.

 
Colin Dowling said:
Nice thread. Obviously, there will be some disagreement, but if you told me to choose between the Ravens or Jags and the Redskins or Eagles, I'd take the NFC duo far and away over Baltimore and Jax.
Click to expand...
AFC bias, and I think its justified. If the Ravens or Jags made it through the gauntlet of AFC opponents and faced Philly or Washington, I'd take the AFC squad in a heart beat. Clearly the AFC represntative would be on a roll like the Steelers of last year, no stopping a team that hot.
 
Chance:

Dallas

Carolina

Chicago

Seattle

New England

Cincy

Pitt

Denver

No Chance:

Green Bay

Tenn

Indy- Manning is the new Marino

New Orleans

39ers

Sleeper chance to surprise:

Philly

Baltimore

 
I think the AFC has better teams as well, but that line of thinking seems out of whack for this excersize.

Of course if a team like Baltimore manages to make the playoffs and get through 3 rounds they'd be favored in the Super Bowl. The same can be said if the Jets make the playoffs. That doesn't mean they are in a good spot to win the Super Bowl.

 
Colin Dowling said:
I think the AFC has better teams as well, but that line of thinking seems out of whack for this excersize. Of course if a team like Baltimore manages to make the playoffs and get through 3 rounds they'd be favored in the Super Bowl. The same can be said if the Jets make the playoffs. That doesn't mean they are in a good spot to win the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
Just how I see things. I see no possibility for any team not listed in the dozen I posted as winning the Super Bowl. Some are less likely than others, but I don't see any way that Philly or Washington win it all because I don't see them being competitive with whoever wins the AFC...even if it is a dark horse. The reason is that the dark horse from the AFC would have addressed its perceived weaknesses and made it to the Championship. Even if Philly or Wash did the same, I still would see them losing in the Super Bowl.
 
H.K. said:
Banger said:
I think SD and Chicago have a decent shot at the SB. Rivers doesn't need to carry the team he needs to manage the game. He has the best RB and best TE in the game at his disposal and they have one of the best run stopping defenses in the game.Chicago has a shot because they will have a top defense and should have a decent running game. They most assuredly win their division and once you are in the playoffs anything can happen.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about making it to the Super Bowl. I am talking about winning it.As for Rivers, "managing" a game is my favorite pet peeve saying for a QB. It takes experience to read a coverage and throw a ball away or take a sack instead of forcing a throw. "Managing" a game is something that occurs only when a QB has the discipline, experience, and ability to know what to do at the right time. If it were that easy, everyone would do it.Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed.
Click to expand...
The Bears have a good running game and dominant defense just like the Ravens of a few years ago. So it's happened before. Not many QB's are in the position to "manage" a game though. How many have a top defense, the best RB, and best TE to lean on? Answer - one (Chargers). Rivers is in a unique position to have a very good running game, a TE to help move the chains and a defense that can give good field position. I'm not saying that he will win the SB but with their defense/running game they have a shot.
 
I agree that San Diego isn't being given enough credit. Didn't Pennington take the Jets within two games of the Super Bowl in his first season of starting? Rivers is a smart kid who won't look the part of a rookie all season long. Rivers has weapons at his disposal and a good defense. He's also got two games apiece against the Raiders and the overrated Chiefs. The Chargers are my dark horse.

I also think we can put this whole AFC is far superior thinking to bed. The NFC has caught up and has plenty of teams that can hold their own versus their AFC brethren. I think this season will prove this. There isn't a single team in either league that doesn't have a weakness. There are more horrible teams in the AFC:

AFC:

Buffalo, Jets, Houston, Titans, Cleveland, and Oakland.

NFC:

New Orleans, Green Bay, San Francisco.

If you really wanted to throw Detroit and Arizona on that list I guess you could but I think both those teams are in a better position than any of the AFC cellar dwellars I mentioned.

 
"Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed."

Just for the record I think the super-bowl will be Carolina and New England. With that said I think it is important to point out that the Baltimore Ravens won a SuperBowl with Trent Dilfer at the helm. It doesn't take a well rounded team or a great quarterback to win the Superbowl. There really is no archetypal "SuperBowl Winner". There is no real pattern for this. The NFL is a constantly evolving league and what works one year often doesn't work the next.

That is why I think the Bears could quite easily be contenders in the playoffs and possibly even hoist the Lombardi trophy. Don't overlook a great defense.

 
Chreesto said:
"Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed."Just for the record I think the super-bowl will be Carolina and New England. With that said I think it is important to point out that the Baltimore Ravens won a SuperBowl with Trent Dilfer at the helm. It doesn't take a well rounded team or a great quarterback to win the Superbowl. There really is no archetypal "SuperBowl Winner". There is no real pattern for this. The NFL is a constantly evolving league and what works one year often doesn't work the next. That is why I think the Bears could quite easily be contenders in the playoffs and possibly even hoist the Lombardi trophy. Don't overlook a great defense.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Brian Griese > Trent Dilfer
 
Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed.

Hmm. What were Roethlisberger's stats in last year's Super Bowl again?

Did Tampa win a Super Bowl?

Did Baltimore win a Super Bowl?

Any team can beat any other team in the NFL on any given Sunday.

That's Paul Tagliabue's legacy that he's left.

I say there's about 28 teams that can win the Super Bowl this year. After six weeks, maybe we'll be down to about 22 or 23, and then by Week 13 maybe 10-12.

 
Spartans Rule said:
Chreesto said:
"Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed."Just for the record I think the super-bowl will be Carolina and New England. With that said I think it is important to point out that the Baltimore Ravens won a SuperBowl with Trent Dilfer at the helm. It doesn't take a well rounded team or a great quarterback to win the Superbowl. There really is no archetypal "SuperBowl Winner". There is no real pattern for this. The NFL is a constantly evolving league and what works one year often doesn't work the next. That is why I think the Bears could quite easily be contenders in the playoffs and possibly even hoist the Lombardi trophy. Don't overlook a great defense.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Brian Griese > Trent Dilfer
Click to expand...
Dilfer was a first round draft pick and he won a Super Bowl.Griese's only achievements in the NFL are hurting himself tripping over his golden retriever or falling down drunk in a teammate's driveway.No comparison.
 
H.K. said:
Spartans Rule said:
Chreesto said:
"Chicago is a one dimensional team. They will not win the Super Bowl. Case closed."Just for the record I think the super-bowl will be Carolina and New England. With that said I think it is important to point out that the Baltimore Ravens won a SuperBowl with Trent Dilfer at the helm. It doesn't take a well rounded team or a great quarterback to win the Superbowl. There really is no archetypal "SuperBowl Winner". There is no real pattern for this. The NFL is a constantly evolving league and what works one year often doesn't work the next. That is why I think the Bears could quite easily be contenders in the playoffs and possibly even hoist the Lombardi trophy. Don't overlook a great defense.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Brian Griese > Trent Dilfer
Click to expand...
Dilfer was a first round draft pick and he won a Super Bowl.Griese's only achievements in the NFL are hurting himself tripping over his golden retriever or falling down drunk in a teammate's driveway.No comparison.
Click to expand...
Career completion %: Griese 63.1, Dilfer 55.7Y/A: Griese 7.1, Dilfer 6.6TD-INT: Griese 103-78, Dilfer 106-117Griese has better stats across the board. And it's not like you can say he's not a winner, because he won a national championship* in college.* - We all know Nebraska would have destroyed Michigan, but Griese was clutch when it counted nonetheless.
 
Spartans Rule said:
Career completion %: Griese 63.1, Dilfer 55.7

Y/A: Griese 7.1, Dilfer 6.6

TD-INT: Griese 103-78, Dilfer 106-117

Griese has better stats across the board. And it's not like you can say he's not a winner, because he won a PARTIAL national championship* in college.

* - We all know Nebraska would have destroyed Michigan, but Griese was clutch when it counted nonetheless.
Click to expand...
The stats are meaningless in this thread, especially when you consider the teams each QB has played for early in their careers. Dilfer was on a horrible Tampa Bay team that he alone could not save. When he went to Baltimore, he led his team to a Super Bowl victory.

Griese had all the talent in the world around him in Denver and blew it. Big time.

We are talking about winning Super Bowls. Dilfer has, Griese never will (not if he is the starter anyway).

 
Teams with no shot:Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.
Click to expand...
You don't have any clue about the Eagles.No running game? Westbrook is probably the most versitile RB in the league. Plus the offensive line is in the top 10 in the league. If you want to say, not much depth at RB yeah I may agree. But no running game. Sorry! I'd take the Eagles O-Line with Westbrook and Buckhalter over the Cowboys O-Line with Jones and Barber any day of the week and twice on Sunday.No real WR Threats? Brown, Stallworth, Baskett, Lewis, Avant is better than any of the WR groups the Eagles had from 1999-2003. Yet they made 3 NFC Championships. 2 of which they were the favorites.Aging defense? Jevon Kearse and Brian Dawkins are the only players over 30 on this defense.
 
H.K. said:
Some of the teams listed with a legitimate shot will not even make the playoffs, while some listed as having no chance will make the post-season. However, temas make the playoffs each year that won't advance, so post-season play is not a criteria. This list is based on teams that have enough talent/experience/coaching to hoist the trophy.

Teams with a chance:

Miami - Lots of weapons, decent defense...dark horse but you never know

New England - As long as they have Brady and Bellichek they have a chance

Baltimore - McNair gives Billick a QB to work with, long shot, but not impossible

Cincinnati - Tons of talent, tough HC

Pittsburgh - No need to explain this one.

Colts - Can't blow home field again

Jaguars - On the bubble, but tough Defense and Offense could be potent.

Panthers - NFC favorite

Seahawks - NFC favorite 1-A

Giants - Unlikely, but possible

Bucs - Simms must emerge

Cowboys - Parcells is the only reason they make this list

Teams with no shot:

Bears - No QB, no chance. Don't care how good the D is.

Broncos - Do you see Plummer winning it all? Me neither.

Falcons - Too soft on defense, Vick too unreliable

Cardinals - Not with their o-line.

Rams - Fragile QB, new HC = no chance

Redskins - Brunell will turn into a pumpkin

Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.

Packers - Seriously.

Lions - see Packers

Vikings - No weapons on offense. None.

49ers - :yucky:

Saints - They are the Saints...'nuff said

Bills - :X

Jets - :X :X

Chiefs - AFC = no playoffs

Chargers - First year starting QB with zero experience

Browns - Other teams in their division way too talented.

Texans - No chance.

Raiders - Complete mess.

Titans - See Raiders.

There you have it. Only twelve teams have a legitimate shot, the list will be whittled down as the season progresses, too.
Click to expand...
The 2006 SB champ will come from the Teams with no shot list. Bank on it.
 
Snotbubbles said:
Teams with no shot:Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.
Click to expand...
You don't have any clue about the Eagles.No running game? Westbrook is probably the most versitile RB in the league. Plus the offensive line is in the top 10 in the league. If you want to say, not much depth at RB yeah I may agree. But no running game. Sorry! I'd take the Eagles O-Line with Westbrook and Buckhalter over the Cowboys O-Line with Jones and Barber any day of the week and twice on Sunday.No real WR Threats? Brown, Stallworth, Baskett, Lewis, Avant is better than any of the WR groups the Eagles had from 1999-2003. Yet they made 3 NFC Championships. 2 of which they were the favorites.Aging defense? Jevon Kearse and Brian Dawkins are the only players over 30 on this defense.
Click to expand...
The only SB they made was when Owens carried them through the regular season and they beat some weak teams in the NFC playoffs.Their current WR's are weak. Their running game can not be relied on to grind out the clock. Dawkins and Kearse are two of their better (if not best) defensive players.I like the Eagles, I think they are a very good team. Wouldn't surprise me if they won their division. However, they will not win the Super Bowl.
 
moleculo said:
H.K. said:
Some of the teams listed with a legitimate shot will not even make the playoffs, while some listed as having no chance will make the post-season. However, temas make the playoffs each year that won't advance, so post-season play is not a criteria. This list is based on teams that have enough talent/experience/coaching to hoist the trophy.

Teams with a chance:

Miami - Lots of weapons, decent defense...dark horse but you never know

New England - As long as they have Brady and Bellichek they have a chance

Baltimore - McNair gives Billick a QB to work with, long shot, but not impossible

Cincinnati - Tons of talent, tough HC

Pittsburgh - No need to explain this one.

Colts - Can't blow home field again

Jaguars - On the bubble, but tough Defense and Offense could be potent.

Panthers - NFC favorite

Seahawks - NFC favorite 1-A

Giants - Unlikely, but possible

Bucs - Simms must emerge

Cowboys - Parcells is the only reason they make this list

Teams with no shot:

Bears - No QB, no chance. Don't care how good the D is.

Broncos - Do you see Plummer winning it all? Me neither.

Falcons - Too soft on defense, Vick too unreliable

Cardinals - Not with their o-line.

Rams - Fragile QB, new HC = no chance

Redskins - Brunell will turn into a pumpkin

Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.

Packers - Seriously.

Lions - see Packers

Vikings - No weapons on offense. None.

49ers - :yucky:

Saints - They are the Saints...'nuff said

Bills - :X

Jets - :X :X

Chiefs - AFC = no playoffs

Chargers - First year starting QB with zero experience

Browns - Other teams in their division way too talented.

Texans - No chance.

Raiders - Complete mess.

Titans - See Raiders.

There you have it. Only twelve teams have a legitimate shot, the list will be whittled down as the season progresses, too.
Click to expand...
The 2006 SB champ will come from the Teams with no shot list. Bank on it.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Only four or five teams on that list have a chance to make the playoffs. Even if they did, they'd never win it all.
 
I'm an admitted Cowboy homer. So I may have rose-colored glasses. But historically, I'm usually right a lot more often than I'm wrong about the Cowboys.

The thing that makes them a SB contender this year is their defense. Very few people realize how nasty they are going to be this year on that side of the ball. They have excellent depth at every position with the exception of backup NT (behind Ferguson) and backup SS (behind Roy Williams). They have so much depth at LB, they have already traded away 1 guy who will start on another team that Dallas was going to cut. There are 2 or 3 more guys who they will cut who will likely start or play a significant role on another team.

So what this means is that they are going to come in waves against offenses. They will wear down offenses and beat them up physically. Much like the Giants under Parcells. They are also going to use a lot of the same exotic packages that New England used a couple of years ago. Stuff like 2 lineman and 5 LBs. They will create havoc against offenses this year.

The Baltimore Ravens won a SB with a great defense. I'd not be surprised to see this version be that good. And considering the offensive firepower that this team has compared to the Ravens, lets just say that I like their chances.

 
Some stuff I agree with, the stuff I don't:

Teams with a chance:Cowboys - Parcells is the only reason they make this list
Click to expand...
Some analysits are picking the Cowboys to win the Superbowl, and I don't think it's only Parcells. The new players he's added on defense will allow him to implement his 3-4, and his offense could be good (although I'm skeptical about his RBs & line). Regardless, I agree that they do have a chance.
Teams with no shot:Bears - No QB, no chance. Don't care how good the D is.Broncos - Do you see Plummer winning it all? Me neither.Redskins - Brunell will turn into a pumpkinEagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.Chiefs - AFC = no playoffs
Click to expand...
Bears - as others mentioned, in the playoffs, and in the cold, and with home field advantage, the Bears defense and running game can hold up with almost any team (including the Colts and Bengals).Broncos - Plummer will go as far as his defense will take them. If they can keep opponents from scoring a lot and maintain a good running game which sets up Plummer's play action pass (which he's great at). I think Plummer can do it, but I'm not sure about the Denver defense (therefore leave it in this group).Redskins - Agree about Brunell, but like Chicago they have a strong defense and SHOULD have a great running game, so you can't count them out.Eagles - They won the division for 4 straight years before Owens, and didn't have as good an offense as they do in 2006. While they didn't get to a Superbowl then, I think that the 2006 version of the Eagles is better than those ones... so I would say that they have a shot.Chiefs - I think this is a bit of a dark horse... they have an offense that is very strong (especailly with a running game, OL, quality QB, great TE) and their defense is improved with Ty Law. Yes, they are in a tough Conference, but they have the qualities of a playoff team not unlike the rams from a while ago.
 
Mordraken said:
Teams with no shot:Bears - No QB, no chance. Don't care how good the D is.Broncos - Do you see Plummer winning it all? Me neither.Redskins - Brunell will turn into a pumpkinEagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.Chiefs - AFC = no playoffs
Click to expand...
Bears - as others mentioned, in the playoffs, and in the cold, and with home field advantage, the Bears defense and running game can hold up with almost any team (including the Colts and Bengals).Broncos - Plummer will go as far as his defense will take them. If they can keep opponents from scoring a lot and maintain a good running game which sets up Plummer's play action pass (which he's great at). I think Plummer can do it, but I'm not sure about the Denver defense (therefore leave it in this group).Redskins - Agree about Brunell, but like Chicago they have a strong defense and SHOULD have a great running game, so you can't count them out.Eagles - They won the division for 4 straight years before Owens, and didn't have as good an offense as they do in 2006. While they didn't get to a Superbowl then, I think that the 2006 version of the Eagles is better than those ones... so I would say that they have a shot.Chiefs - I think this is a bit of a dark horse... they have an offense that is very strong (especailly with a running game, OL, quality QB, great TE) and their defense is improved with Ty Law. Yes, they are in a tough Conference, but they have the qualities of a playoff team not unlike the rams from a while ago.
Click to expand...
I think these teams can make the playoffs. I know they won't win the Super Bowl in 2006.
 
H.K. said:
I think these teams can make the playoffs. I know they won't win the Super Bowl in 2006.
Click to expand...
I picked the Giants to trounce the Ravens in the 2000 Superbowl, but it was the other way around. Why? The giants had an astronomically better offense and a solid defense (ranked #5 overall). It ended up the other way around.Chicago and Washington are both much like the 2000 Ravens....and you say the reason Chicago's QB (be it Greise or Grossman) can't win the Superbowl is because he hasn't won it yet? Well in 2000 Trent Dilfer hadn't won a superbowl either. That was his first one (and his only one). Even that year he wasn't a starting QB (he was behind Tony Banks). He then went on to Seattle to back up Matt Hasselbeck. So if a QB who has basically been a backup in 7 of his 11 seasons in the league can win a superbowl, then QBs like Greise or Brunell can too.I'm not saying that they are favourites... but I can certainly see both Chicago and Washington making it deep into the playoffs. If either team can shut down Steve Smith, then they can go onto the Superbowl. And if they can shut down Steve Smith, they can shut down AFC teams (although since I think the SB is in Florida, they won't have the weather on their side).One thing I learned in week 1 of 2005 by watching the Miami Dolphins trounce the Denver Broncos and the 49ers beat the Rams is that you can NEVER say "never" in football.
 
zanti8 said:
nfctop tiercarolina phillyseattle - looked much nastier on defense . julian peterson looked huge in the game i saw . easy schedulepossibledallaswashingtongiants brutal schedule = 8-8 . bucs and falcons stink this year imo . bears no .afctop tier - i would be amazed if not one of these represent afc :patsbroncoscoltssteelersi dont see anyone , baybe bengals but i doubt it chalenging . they have a brutal schedule . jags will be around 8-8 . i think the wilcards are phins and raiders with outside shots .
Click to expand...
:confused: The Bucs stink and the Raiders have an outside shot? We need a "put some money on that?" smilie.
 
Snotbubbles said:
Teams with no shot:Eagles - No running game, no reall WR threats, aging defense.
Click to expand...
You don't have any clue about the Eagles.No running game? Westbrook is probably the most versitile RB in the league. Plus the offensive line is in the top 10 in the league. If you want to say, not much depth at RB yeah I may agree. But no running game. Sorry! I'd take the Eagles O-Line with Westbrook and Buckhalter over the Cowboys O-Line with Jones and Barber any day of the week and twice on Sunday.No real WR Threats? Brown, Stallworth, Baskett, Lewis, Avant is better than any of the WR groups the Eagles had from 1999-2003. Yet they made 3 NFC Championships. 2 of which they were the favorites.Aging defense? Jevon Kearse and Brian Dawkins are the only players over 30 on this defense.
Click to expand...
Westbrook might be the most versatile if you include sitting on the bench injured as a category.
 
H.K. said:
Teams with no shot:

Chargers - First year starting QB with zero experience
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree, but at least give a better reason why.Two QBs have done this since 2000 (Warner and Roethlisberger)

Two of the last seven is too good of a percentage to have "no shot."

Heck the percentage goes up even more when you see that 3 of those winners since 2000 were the same QB (Brady, a 2nd year QB).

So 2 of the last 5 different Super Bowl teams had a first year starter (40%).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
After two weeks of the regular season,both Miami and Carolina have disappointed. Chicago has Grossman playing better than expected, same can be said of SD. However it is early in the regular season and the playoffs are an entirely different animal, so I still feel like my original post is accurate. Carolina can still right the ship, but I doubt Miami will.

 
H.K. said:
After two weeks of the regular season,both Miami and Carolina have disappointed. Chicago has Grossman playing better than expected, same can be said of SD. However it is early in the regular season and the playoffs are an entirely different animal, so I still feel like my original post is accurate. Carolina can still right the ship, but I doubt Miami will.
Click to expand...
In the NFC, the pre-season favorite Seahawks are 2-0, but don't look like the same team right now as they did last year. And Carolina was the other team most talked about in the NFC, and at 0-2, they could be in for a long road back (especially considering it could take weeks for Smith to get fully healthy, and they're not at all the same team without him). I expect the Seahawks to play better, but they certainly look beatable and that could make for a wide-open NFC race.So that would open the door to reverse a few of your original picks:Clearly the Bears have to be looked at as a legitimate contender in the NFC now. The defense has looked better than last year so far, and Grossman has been limiting his mistakes and making smart decisions and big plays. They haven't really gotten the running game going yet, which is usually their bread and butter, and when they do, even if the passing game comes down to earth (and I'm sure it will at some point), their offense should still be balanced enough to ride the success of the defense and give them a chance to go deep into the playoffs.With how dominant the Atlanta running game has been, they have to at least be moved up to the top tier in the NFC, especially with Carolina struggling in their division.I think the Eagles have a chance to make a run, as long as they don't give away any more games. Westbrook has looked very good, McNabb has played off the charts (except in the 4th Q and OT yesterday), and Stallworth could be the biggest acquisition any team made during the preseason.For the rest of your list, the Giants still have a good chance and should stay in the top tier, but I think you have to drop the Bucs and the Cowboys out of that list the way they look right now.In the AFC, your dark horse, the Dolphins, have looked like the lame horse so far, but all the rest of your picks have played well, for the most part, so Indy, NE, Balt, Cincy, and the Jags all belong there. Although of this list, NE has looked very beatable, but given their playoff experience and Brady (if they make the playoffs in the competitive AFC), you can never count them out.Aside from that, I don't really see any AFC teams that have emerged as legit contenders, except maybe the Chargers who may very well win their division, but like you said, with Rivers at the helm, it's too hard to envision them winning the AFC, let alone a single playoff game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hephner said:
H.K. said:
After two weeks of the regular season,both Miami and Carolina have disappointed. Chicago has Grossman playing better than expected, same can be said of SD. However it is early in the regular season and the playoffs are an entirely different animal, so I still feel like my original post is accurate. Carolina can still right the ship, but I doubt Miami will.
Click to expand...
So that would open the door to reverse a few of your original picks:Reversing my position would be a cop out, don't you think? Actually, I feel like the start of the season has reaffirmed my rankings, but probably narrowed the field.

Clearly the Bears have to be looked at as a legitimate contender in the NFC now. The defense has looked better than last year so far, and Grossman has been limiting his mistakes and making smart decisions and big plays.

As I said earlier, playoff football is much different than regular season football. Grossman will need to beat much better defenses than the Lions. I still say Chicago won't win it all. Playoffs? Defisnitely. SB Champs? Nope.

With how dominant the Atlanta running game has been, they have to at least be moved up to the top tier in the NFC, especially with Carolina struggling in their division.

Probably the one team that has emerged that I wish I included because their defense has been much better than I envisioned. However, they still play in a tough division and Carolina and TB will get better. Even if Vick gets hurt, they won't skip a beat though. Still not convinced they can beat the AFC in the Super Bowl.

I think the Eagles have a chance to make a run, as long as they don't give away any more games. Westbrook has looked very good, McNabb has played off the charts (except in the 4th Q and OT yesterday), and Stallworth could be the biggest acquisition any team made during the preseason.

You have to run and play defense to win. Yesterday's loss proved it. No Lombardi trophy in Philly.

For the rest of your list, the Giants still have a good chance and should stay in the top tier, but I think you have to drop the Bucs and the Cowboys out of that list the way they look right now.

Gruden and Parcells are elite coaches, I won't count them out yet.
Click to expand...
 
Any team that makes the playoffs can win the superbowl, regardless of their talent level. You seem to think that teams are fated to lose a string of games if they don't meet certain criteria(like having a great QB).

In reality, any team will win a game with probability A(x). They will win a string of x games with probability A(1)*A(2)*...*A(x).

To say that a playoff team has no chance chance of winning the superbowl is patently absurd, especially if they win the #1 or #2 seed in their conference(like the Bears or Chargers have a solid shot at doing).

Even a wild card team which is a 65:35 dog on average will win the superbowl 1.5% of the time (.35^4). If a #1/2 seed is even 50% to win each of it's games on average, you're looking at a 12.5% chance to win the superbowl(.50^3).

Handicapping is science, not voodoo.

 
My top 5 to take it

1. Atlanta - The combo of their running game and defense look very dangerous

2. Da Bears - but we'll see what happens when they play some tougher teams

3. Jags - defense defense defense!! And Leftwich is extremely underrated IMHO

4. Cinci - All the peices are there, it's just a question of whether or not they can put it all together

5. San Diego - If Rivers can flourish the Chargers will be a very complete team

 
Hue G said:
My top 5 to take it1. Atlanta - The combo of their running game and defense look very dangerous2. Da Bears - but we'll see what happens when they play some tougher teams3. Jags - defense defense defense!! And Leftwich is extremely underrated IMHO4. Cinci - All the peices are there, it's just a question of whether or not they can put it all together5. San Diego - If Rivers can flourish the Chargers will be a very complete team
Click to expand...
I like Baltimore better than San Diego. They have a better defense, a better coach and have been there before. The only one-up San Diego has is Tomlinson, and that's as long as he's not run into the ground by the end of the season.Pittsburgh is still a pretty strong contender. I'd put them over San Diego, too.
 
Miami & Tampa Bay are toast, but the rest of my picks are looking good. Teams not on my list have shown why they won't win the SB:

1) Bears should be 4-2 and are drastically over-rated. Grossman is living a lie.

2) Falcons have come back to earth. Too inconsistent.

3) Chargers still have Schotty, & while Rivers has had a good week or two, he'll have his bad days ahead.

4) Broncos - Plummer = :X

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there are 7 teams with a legitimate shot...

In order of my odds to win it:

Pats 6-1

Steelers 8-1

Chargers 9-1

Colts 10-1

Bears 15-1

Saints 20-1

Eagles 20-1

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Which division would win?
Replies
0
Views
132
travdogg
T
Ministry of Pain
Projected Win totals for all 32 teams
Replies
24
Views
1K
Alex P Keaton
A
T
The 2024 Overlooked Offense - there's gold in them there teams
Replies
36
Views
2K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top