AFC's Best (1 Viewer)

[Kit Fisto]

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

Don't put words in my mouth bro. I don't recall saying they are being trashed, and I'm not calling for "respect". I simply said they're the most talked about team in here, good or bad. That's says alot to me. Please revisit the post in this thread that states they're not even a playoff team if you need to *gasp*...

 

[Boston]

I think the whole "time to gel" excuse to downgrade the Pats is somewhat of a crock. A quick look at their roster shows:

*With the exception of one positional coach the entire coaching staff returns intact. Two years ago they lost both coordinators and last year they lost Mangini. This is the first time in three years that they are not breaking in new coordinators.

*The Whole O line reurns intact.

*The whole D Line returns intact.

*The whole secondary that started in 2006 before the injuries hit returns intact. If Merriweather beats out Wilson than they'll have one new starter which will be seen as an upgrade.

*Three of four starters return at LB. I'll go out on a limb and say Thomas is a slight upgrade over Junior and Banta-Cain.

*Overall the Pats return 10/11 starters from last years starting defensive unit.

*Offensively there will be 3 1/2 new starters (I count Maroney as a half since he was splitting carries with Dillon). The new faces are David Thomas (who was on the team last year) inplace of Graham and Moss and Stallworth instead of last years starters (I'll use Gaffney and Caldwell) who actually are still on the team but instead of being #1 and #2 are now fighting to make the roster as a #5.

*Gostowski is now in his second year and is no longer an unknown quantity, especially after his playoff performance.

So, overall the Pats will have between four and five new starters. Three of the starters (Moss, Stallworth and Thomas) can be seen as tremendous upgrades. One starter can be seen as a potential downgrade (Graham and Thomas) and one is still an unknown (Merriweather and Wilson). The core of this team remains intact...the Pats have simply upgraded a few areas that were not producing at a level needed to win a championship and that's why Thomas, Moss, Stallworth and guys like Welker are wearing Patriot uniforms today. To think BB can't incorporate the new guys into the current squad basically says you are not confident in his ability as a coach. By the way the 2004 championship team had five new opening day starters on defense alone (Poole, Rodney, Wilson, Washington and Colvin) than the 2007 team may have overall....the 2005 team had two of three new starters at D-Line and the 2001 team had something like 20+ players signed as free agents prior to the season. BB is well schooled in breaking in new players to the Patriot system.

 

[BGP]

And for those saying McNair is done, so what, he had a bunch of picks in the playoffs. So did Manning and Brady. Every QB gets intercepted more when they play playoff caliber defenses.

Steve McNair has 6 TDs and 11 INTs in the playoffs in his career:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/McNaSt00.htm

In ten playoff games, he has thrown more TDs than INTs only once.

That's pretty bad. I can't think of any QBs with such a consistently poor playoff performance in that many games. What has saved him in the past is that he ran for 6 TDs. But that's dried up now, and since he stopped being a running QB he has thrown 2 TDs and 6 INTs.

 

[bostonfred]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

 

[bostonfred]

And for those saying McNair is done, so what, he had a bunch of picks in the playoffs. So did Manning and Brady. Every QB gets intercepted more when they play playoff caliber defenses.

Steve McNair has 6 TDs and 11 INTs in the playoffs in his career:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/McNaSt00.htm

In ten playoff games, he has thrown more TDs than INTs only once.

That's pretty bad. I can't think of any QBs with such a consistently poor playoff performance in that many games. What has saved him in the past is that he ran for 6 TDs. But that's dried up now, and since he stopped being a running QB he has thrown 2 TDs and 6 INTs.

He has 12 total TDs and 11 INTs? That's a positive ratio. I don't think he's the #1 QB in the league, and I don't think he's en route to a Superbowl, but he's a good enough regular season quarterback to get them one or two rounds deep.

 

[bostonfred]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

 

[rascal]

Pats have a good team, but they aren't devoid of question marks themselves. Their secondary is suspect and I think they will miss Graham.

Not to single you out, but how is it that the Pats defense that:- Only allowed a team record low 237 points- Added Adelius Thomas and Brandon Meriweather- Should have Rodney Harrison, Randall Gay, Chad Scott, and Eugene Wilson back from injuriesThat worse off than last year while one of the other contenders (IND) . . .- Allowed 360 points- Lost their a Pro Bowl CB, a Pro Bowl LB, and their other starting CB- Whose have signed essentially no defensive free agents- Who added several rookies drafted in Rounds 3-5- Down the road would have to face a Pats offense with A LOT more firepowerI do agree that the Pats like all teams have a few question marks, but I can't see how people don't see them as in a much better place than they were starting out last season.

Not sure why you referenced my post since I said on this thread at least once that they were an improved team. However improoved they are, there are still some question marks as I pointed out (secondary and Maroney injury concern). And I never said that the Colts were the better team at this juncture.

 

[Pat Patriot]

A lot goes into winning a Super Bowl title. The Patriots are obviously one of the most improved teams in the league from last year. Fact of the matter is though, however much they re improved, they might not record a better record than last years 12-4 (I personally think 13-3 will be the mark). That mark last year was good for a 4th seed in the AFC. They almost pulled it off last year but if they are the 4th seed in the AFC, the likelihood of them winning the title is not good. If they pull a 13-3 or 14-2 and get the #1 seed, it is very likely they go back to the big dance.

I find it funny those that discount the Patriots because of the new faces. This isnt last year where Branch held out in camp and the Pats had to trade for Gabriel during the season and pull Gaffney off the scrap heap and try to work them in. They have a bunch of minicamps a full training season to get their timing and familiarity down. Considering they have the hardest working and most respected QB in the league, I like their chances.

I think whoever started that 16-0 thread was just joking but even with a tough schedule, I think 13-3 and a bye is reasonable.

I dont see what is wrong with a Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison, Wilson/Merriweather secondary with Gay, Scott, Sanders coming off the bench. If Samuels holds out, the Pats dont have enough depth at CB to cover for him. That is a situation to watch closely.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

 

[BGP]

And for those saying McNair is done, so what, he had a bunch of picks in the playoffs. So did Manning and Brady. Every QB gets intercepted more when they play playoff caliber defenses.

Steve McNair has 6 TDs and 11 INTs in the playoffs in his career:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/McNaSt00.htm

In ten playoff games, he has thrown more TDs than INTs only once.

That's pretty bad. I can't think of any QBs with such a consistently poor playoff performance in that many games. What has saved him in the past is that he ran for 6 TDs. But that's dried up now, and since he stopped being a running QB he has thrown 2 TDs and 6 INTs.

He has 12 total TDs and 11 INTs? That's a positive ratio. I don't think he's the #1 QB in the league, and I don't think he's en route to a Superbowl, but he's a good enough regular season quarterback to get them one or two rounds deep.

As a passer, he has 6 TDs and 11 INTs. And recently he's been strictly a passer. Without the wheels he displayed in his youth, McNair isn't that good.

 

[pizzatyme]

Even with all of the moves the Patriots have made so far, I can't rank them ahead of Indy or San Diego yet.

I can. SD has an entire new coaching staff and the Colts lost Harper, David, June, Morris, and Rhodes. While the defense played better in the post-season, I never thought the Colts D was all that great before they lost some key guys . . .

The Colts re-signed Morris.June was a product of the system. Keiaho will fill in just fine there IMO.Harper and David are being replaced by 2 quality DBs who were drafted to step in. The cover 2 corners don't have as much impact overall. So, again, I think they'll be fine.Rhodes was great in the playoffs, but he was very average for us during the regular season. His nickname in our owners section was 2nd and 9. Because he was only good for 1yd. on 1st down!With all of that said, I think it takes the defense 7 or 8 games to come together. In the mean time, I look for the offense to show off Gonzalez and post some big games.I'd rank 'em:SDIndy-NEDenverCincyPittsBaltJAXKC

 

[Kit Fisto]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

BF,

 

[moleculo]

Anyone not picking the Patriots to win the SB is delusional. They were championship caliber last year, and got better. Their WR's are SIGNIFICANTLY better, which was the sole weak spot in 2006. Their LB's are better with Thomas. They didn't loose any coaches or significant players (OK, they lost the punter, the blocking TE, and the aging 2nd string RB. No biggie).

This remnds me of when the Eagles signed TO and Kearse, and the Pats picked up Dillon. Anyone not picking a Philly/NE SB in July was a woman - any red blooded male should have seen it, it was that obvious. When one of the best teams gets significantly better - well, it shouldn't be fair.

I'm not a Pats fan either - I'm about as hard core Bronco fan as you will find, and it pains me to admit how great NE will be this year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Even with all of the moves the Patriots have made so far, I can't rank them ahead of Indy or San Diego yet.

Yes but you hate the Patriots with the passion of 1,000 suns.

True, but I can't put them any lower than 3rd right now. Slightly above the Raiders.

Let's start here . . .They went 12-4 last year. Given the guys they've added, what do you think there record will be in 07?at NY Jets 1:00 pm LossSan Diego 8:15 pm LossBuffalo 1:00 pm Winat Cincinnati 8:30 pm LossCleveland 1:00 pm Winat Dallas 4:15 pm Lossat Miami 1:00 pm WinWashington 4:15 pm Winat Indianapolis 4:15 pm Lossbye at Buffalo 1:00 pm WinPhiladelphia 8:15 pm Winat Baltimore 8:30 pm LossPittsburgh 1:00 pm WinNY Jets 1:00 pm WinMiami 1:00 pm Winat NY Giants 8:15 pm Win

Looks like 10-6 to me.

@ Dallas loss? Is it because of the emotional letdown from their win over Cleveland, or because they'll be petrified of playing @Ted Ginn the following week?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

Buffalo had an incredible draft, though. I'm not sure they're going to be worse.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'll be honest I haven't given this a ton of thought. So try not to flame too much if I miss something obvious (like a player no longer on a team).

1. Patriots - maybe the best team in the league last year (I believe strongly in the Sagarin ratings). Impressive off-season, to say the least.

2. Chargers - love the offense. Think the loss of the three coaches was a very big deal, but I have a hard time knocking a team that didn't lose a game against a nonplayoff team last year, and when they did, only lost by 3 and on the road.

3. Colts - like the first round pick. Team just wasn't that good last year. Great passing offense, good rushing offense, but a bad defense. Can the D play anywhere near like they did at the end of last year? Maybe, but not banking on it. Playing NE at home helps; if that game was in Foxboro, I don't know how the Colts would beat NE out for a bye. Still, I see them failing to get as many wins as NE or SD.

4. Jaguars - Awesome running game. Awesome running defense. Just as good a passing defense. Questionable passing game, but Matt Jones, Reggie Williams, Leftwich and Garrard are all young. Should only be improving. I don't like either QB much, but maybe the competition will help them out? They added Reggie Nelson to replace Grant, and didn't lose anyone of note. One of the top teams last year, they should be even better this year after going through a tough 2006.

5. Jets - Only weakness on the team is rushing the passer, but average or above average everywhere else. Not going to get outcoached, and solved the RB problem, the CB problem, and the rushing defense problem in the draft. Jets are a young team on year two of the new regime, which should signal some improvement from a 10 win season.

6. Steelers - Can they fix the pass defense? If so, they're a playoff team. I think Roethlisberger was an elite QB in 2005, and I expect him to return to being one in 2007. If so, they'll have the passing game, the running game and the run defense. Obviously they become a scary team if they can stop the pass.

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

Baltimore - hate McNair. Hate McGahee. Two very overrated players. McNair is 34 going on 70, and has had 3 300 yard games the last 3 years. He's pretty accurate but was an average (at best) QB for the third straight year. McGahee? 3.8 YPC does nothing for me. Yes, it's better than Jamal Lewis, but I'm not excited. The defense, of course, is excellent. And maybe I'm downgrade them more than I should. I think Pittsburgh wins that division, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Baltimore gets one more win instead.

 

[jonessed]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

They fit the stereotype so well

 

[BoltBacker]

I'll be honest I haven't given this a ton of thought. So try not to flame too much if I miss something obvious (like a player no longer on a team).

I'm curious why you left DEN off your list. IMO they are much improved. For all those saying Big Ben will be better next year for PIT I'd counter and say Cutler will be much better than last year..... and he was considerably better than Ben last year. Walker is younger than Ward and there's every reason to believe he'll have a better season than Ward. DEN acquired Henry and he's an upgrade over the backs they had last season. And the single biggest reason I think DEN is improved is Dre Blye replacing the CB they had last year. That CB across from Champ(It's hard to speak ill of deceased) cost them so many games last year it was ridiculous. IMO DEN improved in a lot of areas where as PIT lost Cowher and Porter. Both teams are hoping they got some pass rushers in the draft. Why all the love for PIT and no love for DEN? Not just from you but also most other posters in this thread.

 

[djcolts]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

2 to 1? That's crappy odds, no matter how good the Pats seem to be right now. Even if they get the #1 seed in the AFC, they still have to win 3 games in the playoffs (and that's a big if, because regardless of their talent, it is still a long season).

So, I'm going to make an assumption that the Pats, Chargers, Colts and Ravens repeat as divison champs for simplicity, and the Pats get the #1 seed.

So, say the Pats play the Ravens, and the winner would face the Chargers/Colts winner. What are the odds the Pats beat the Ravens in the divisional round? 70%? 65%? Let's say 65%.

Then, let's say they face the Chargers in the AFC Championship? Let's say the odds that they'd win that game is 60%.

Then, there's the Super Bowl. Maybe the NFC elite won't be that good again - maybe a team steps up. We don't really know at that point. Let's be generous to the Pats and say that they have a 70% chance of winning the last game.

So, do the math: 65*.60*.70 equals a 27% chance of getting through the playoffs even if the best case scenario happens and they are the #1 seed with no significant injuries.

I wouldn't take ANY team in the NFL at 2 to 1. Not in a one and done playoff situation. Not with at least 4 really good teams in the AFC alone.

 

[pizzatyme]

Actually, the Colts at 8-1 or 10-1 in some books is the better play!

It is the same to me as betting the 2-1 favorite in the Kentucky Derby. He looks great on paper, but he is running against 10 other horses and anything can happen on a given day!

 

[Kirby]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

The Bengals went 8-8 with the toughest SOS while playing musical O-line and musical linebackers. Carson wasn't 100% either. The schedule is easier this year and they have an improved D.

 

[PatsWillWin]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

2 to 1? That's crappy odds, no matter how good the Pats seem to be right now. Even if they get the #1 seed in the AFC, they still have to win 3 games in the playoffs (and that's a big if, because regardless of their talent, it is still a long season).

So, I'm going to make an assumption that the Pats, Chargers, Colts and Ravens repeat as divison champs for simplicity, and the Pats get the #1 seed.

So, say the Pats play the Ravens, and the winner would face the Chargers/Colts winner. What are the odds the Pats beat the Ravens in the divisional round? 70%? 65%? Let's say 65%.

Then, let's say they face the Chargers in the AFC Championship? Let's say the odds that they'd win that game is 60%.

Then, there's the Super Bowl. Maybe the NFC elite won't be that good again - maybe a team steps up. We don't really know at that point. Let's be generous to the Pats and say that they have a 70% chance of winning the last game.

So, do the math: 65*.60*.70 equals a 27% chance of getting through the playoffs even if the best case scenario happens and they are the #1 seed with no significant injuries.

I wouldn't take ANY team in the NFL at 2 to 1. Not in a one and done playoff situation. Not with at least 4 really good teams in the AFC alone.

He was not telling you to take the Patriots at 2 to 1.

 

[djcolts]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

2 to 1? That's crappy odds, no matter how good the Pats seem to be right now. Even if they get the #1 seed in the AFC, they still have to win 3 games in the playoffs (and that's a big if, because regardless of their talent, it is still a long season).

So, I'm going to make an assumption that the Pats, Chargers, Colts and Ravens repeat as divison champs for simplicity, and the Pats get the #1 seed.

So, say the Pats play the Ravens, and the winner would face the Chargers/Colts winner. What are the odds the Pats beat the Ravens in the divisional round? 70%? 65%? Let's say 65%.

Then, let's say they face the Chargers in the AFC Championship? Let's say the odds that they'd win that game is 60%.

Then, there's the Super Bowl. Maybe the NFC elite won't be that good again - maybe a team steps up. We don't really know at that point. Let's be generous to the Pats and say that they have a 70% chance of winning the last game.

So, do the math: 65*.60*.70 equals a 27% chance of getting through the playoffs even if the best case scenario happens and they are the #1 seed with no significant injuries.

I wouldn't take ANY team in the NFL at 2 to 1. Not in a one and done playoff situation. Not with at least 4 really good teams in the AFC alone.

He was not telling you to take the Patriots at 2 to 1.

I know he wasn't. The fact that those are the odds are ridiculous - as he said. I wasn't busting on bostonfred here, just the odds themselves.

 

[D_House]

I think Buffalo will surprise a lot of people this year. Agreed with everyone that NE, Indy, and SD are the class of the division, and I'd rank them in that order. NE gained a lot in free agency and lost little. Indy may be hurt by the loss of multiple starting defenders. I think SD still has the most talent in the NFL (props to AJ Smith), but I don't know how they will adjust to the loss of the HC and both coordinators.

 

[rascal]

I'll be honest I haven't given this a ton of thought. So try not to flame too much if I miss something obvious (like a player no longer on a team).

1. Patriots - maybe the best team in the league last year (I believe strongly in the Sagarin ratings). Impressive off-season, to say the least.

2. Chargers - love the offense. Think the loss of the three coaches was a very big deal, but I have a hard time knocking a team that didn't lose a game against a nonplayoff team last year, and when they did, only lost by 3 and on the road.

3. Colts - like the first round pick. Team just wasn't that good last year. Great passing offense, good rushing offense, but a bad defense. Can the D play anywhere near like they did at the end of last year? Maybe, but not banking on it. Playing NE at home helps; if that game was in Foxboro, I don't know how the Colts would beat NE out for a bye. Still, I see them failing to get as many wins as NE or SD.

4. Jaguars - Awesome running game. Awesome running defense. Just as good a passing defense. Questionable passing game, but Matt Jones, Reggie Williams, Leftwich and Garrard are all young. Should only be improving. I don't like either QB much, but maybe the competition will help them out? They added Reggie Nelson to replace Grant, and didn't lose anyone of note. One of the top teams last year, they should be even better this year after going through a tough 2006.

5. Jets - Only weakness on the team is rushing the passer, but average or above average everywhere else. Not going to get outcoached, and solved the RB problem, the CB problem, and the rushing defense problem in the draft. Jets are a young team on year two of the new regime, which should signal some improvement from a 10 win season.

6. Steelers - Can they fix the pass defense? If so, they're a playoff team. I think Roethlisberger was an elite QB in 2005, and I expect him to return to being one in 2007. If so, they'll have the passing game, the running game and the run defense. Obviously they become a scary team if they can stop the pass.

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

Baltimore - hate McNair. Hate McGahee. Two very overrated players. McNair is 34 going on 70, and has had 3 300 yard games the last 3 years. He's pretty accurate but was an average (at best) QB for the third straight year. McGahee? 3.8 YPC does nothing for me. Yes, it's better than Jamal Lewis, but I'm not excited. The defense, of course, is excellent. And maybe I'm downgrade them more than I should. I think Pittsburgh wins that division, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Baltimore gets one more win instead.

Where do you place the Broncos? Most would agree that they and the Pats had the best offseason, and with a more experienced Cutler you would think they would improve, no?

 

[switz]

So, in conclusion, suck it.

Yeah, I thought it was hilarious too. Lovely language. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

The Bengals went 8-8 with the toughest SOS while playing musical O-line and musical linebackers. Carson wasn't 100% either. The schedule is easier this year and they have an improved D.

Why wasn't Carson 100%? The Bengals lost their last 3 games of the season, and won their first three games of the season. If that was reversed, maybe I'd agree with you.I have the Bengals with the 12th hardest schedule, not the first. Significant difference there.

I think people try to make excuses for the Bengals. What I don't understand, is why.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm curious why you left DEN off your list. IMO they are much improved. For all those saying Big Ben will be better next year for PIT I'd counter and say Cutler will be much better than last year..... and he was considerably better than Ben last year. Walker is younger than Ward and there's every reason to believe he'll have a better season than Ward. DEN acquired Henry and he's an upgrade over the backs they had last season. And the single biggest reason I think DEN is improved is Dre Blye replacing the CB they had last year. That CB across from Champ(It's hard to speak ill of deceased) cost them so many games last year it was ridiculous. IMO DEN improved in a lot of areas where as PIT lost Cowher and Porter. Both teams are hoping they got some pass rushers in the draft. Why all the love for PIT and no love for DEN? Not just from you but also most other posters in this thread.

Where do you place the Broncos? Most would agree that they and the Pats had the best offseason, and with a more experienced Cutler you would think they would improve, no?

I left Denver off the list because I forgot about them.I'm a bit Cutler fan. I thought Plummer absolutely killed the Broncos last year. Denver's defense was doing very well in the first half of last year, but then was totally exposed in the second half. Denver allowed 7.3 PPG the first six weeks, then 26.1 PPG the rest of the year. WTMF?I like Henry, Cutler and Bly. So I'm high on Denver. I'm a little down on them because HOW do you go 1-3 against the NFC West? Seriously? How is that even possible for an AFC contender? Just terrible, and obviously cost them the playoffs last year.If the defense can come back to where it was in the start of last year, Denver is a lock for the playoffs. I certainly shouldn't have left them off. I guess the question is which D do we get out of Denver or Pittsburgh? I think both have above average offenses and at least average defenses -- the question is which D becomes very good.I should probably re-order it as...1. NE2. SD3. Ind4. Jac5. NYJ6. Bal7. Den8. Pit

 

[switz]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

Overall, Buffalo is improved from last year, as long as Youboty steps in. McGahee was overrated, Lynch should easily imrpve on that. Flethcer is getting long in the tooth - yeah he was a great tackler, but he wasn't the be-all, end-all of the defense.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You know the Patriots are back on top (in people's minds) when all guys can do is put them down. Most talked about team at FBG by far. That being said...

Oh God yes, NE has been absolutely trashed in this thread. Everyone is putting them down. Someone even suggested that they might not win the Super Bowl *gasp*. No respect, no respect at all.

That's the thing with NE fans... doesn't matter what's said - everyone disrespects NE.And criticize their WRs over the years, they defend them. Then criticize Brady - the excuse is his WRs were bad. It's just the average NE fan. Ignore it.

The Pats will be good this year, best in the division? Not until they beat the teams ahead of them.

Their WRs over the years haven't been good. Branch is good at what he does but he was never a WR1. I have the same reservations about him in Seattle that I had about him in New Enland, but Seattle throws more to their top WR so he may put up decent fantasy numbers. By comparison to Harrison and Wayne, the Pats have had bad receivers. By comparison to Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown, last year's corps of Caldwell, Gaffney and Brown was very bad. Actually, by any measure, last year's receivers were bad, and were universally called the weakness of the team.

I get it, you hate the Patriots and their fans. But you're making things up here. Very few New England fans have complained about disrespect since 2001, when people called them the worst Superbowl champs in history.

Since then, people have made a case for Brady the best quarterback in the league, the argument has been made that the Patriots are a dynasty, and the argument has been made that the Patriots, not the defending champion Colts, should be the AFC favorites this year. I'm sure you think that's a case of the fans whining about disrespect, but the reality is that Brady's going to the Hall of Fame, the Patriots are almost universally considered a dynasty, and as of today, New England is getting a ridiculous line of 2 to 1 to win the Superbowl, while San Diego gets 6 to 1 and Indy only gets 8 to 1.

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp

So, in conclusion, suck it.

2 to 1? That's crappy odds, no matter how good the Pats seem to be right now. Even if they get the #1 seed in the AFC, they still have to win 3 games in the playoffs (and that's a big if, because regardless of their talent, it is still a long season).

So, I'm going to make an assumption that the Pats, Chargers, Colts and Ravens repeat as divison champs for simplicity, and the Pats get the #1 seed.

So, say the Pats play the Ravens, and the winner would face the Chargers/Colts winner. What are the odds the Pats beat the Ravens in the divisional round? 70%? 65%? Let's say 65%.

Then, let's say they face the Chargers in the AFC Championship? Let's say the odds that they'd win that game is 60%.

Then, there's the Super Bowl. Maybe the NFC elite won't be that good again - maybe a team steps up. We don't really know at that point. Let's be generous to the Pats and say that they have a 70% chance of winning the last game.

So, do the math: 65*.60*.70 equals a 27% chance of getting through the playoffs even if the best case scenario happens and they are the #1 seed with no significant injuries.

I wouldn't take ANY team in the NFL at 2 to 1. Not in a one and done playoff situation. Not with at least 4 really good teams in the AFC alone.

He was not telling you to take the Patriots at 2 to 1.

I know he wasn't. The fact that those are the odds are ridiculous - as he said. I wasn't busting on bostonfred here, just the odds themselves.

All SB futures odds are ridiculous. HTH.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

Overall, Buffalo is improved from last year, as long as Youboty steps in. McGahee was overrated, Lynch should easily imrpve on that. Flethcer is getting long in the tooth - yeah he was a great tackler, but he wasn't the be-all, end-all of the defense.

If they had a better WR2, I'd believe in them even more.

 

[Obie Wan]

The Patriots look like the team everyone will love to talk about, but there are way too many new guys.It's going to take some time for them to gel. I wouldn't be surprised to see them end up missing the playoffs.San Diego - Rivers will be more comfortable and Tomlinson won't have to do so much.Indy - Still ??'s about their DCincinnatti - Palmer's starting the season healthy, but ??'s at LBNew England - should be very good but see aboveNew York Jets - will be right there with New England for the DivDenver - Henry will allow Cutler to do his thingJacksonville - don't count them outBaltimore, Pittsburgh - Balt regresses, Pittsburgh improvesWild Card - Buffalo - I think they'll be good. Maybe a ceiling of 9-7, but it may be enough to be in the WC hunt still at the start of week 17

10-6 will get the Bills in the hunt.

 

[Obie Wan]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

Buffalo got rid of some name players. They will be a better and more diversified team than last.

 

[bostonfred]

I will be surprised when/if one of Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Buffalo, or Miami contends for a playoff spot, but it seems like there's always a surprise team.

Buffalo contended for a playoff spot last year.

They also lost their best player. It's funny that you didn't mention KC, who was IN the playoffs last year. Teams get better or worse in the offseason. Buffalo got worse.

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

McGahee. I watched more Buffalo games than I would like to have last year, and he looked really, really good. He didn't put up the numbers because he was facing eight or nine men in the box almost every down, but he made the defense work and he got just about everything he could have on that team. The only reason Buffalo's passing game seemed to improve is that people were daring Losman to throw. The problem isn't whether Lynch is good, which is still up in the air, it's whether Lee Evans and Peerless Price are good enough to scare anyone. I think Evans is going to drop off in a big way when teams realize they don't have to overcommit to stopping Lynch. That offense is a mess. Buffalo had a good draft, but all they did was plug holes that opened up from their marginal team last year. I see them as a 6-10 team this year.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

The Bengals went 8-8 with the toughest SOS while playing musical O-line and musical linebackers. Carson wasn't 100% either. The schedule is easier this year and they have an improved D.

Why wasn't Carson 100%? The Bengals lost their last 3 games of the season, and won their first three games of the season. If that was reversed, maybe I'd agree with you.I have the Bengals with the 12th hardest schedule, not the first. Significant difference there.

I think people try to make excuses for the Bengals. What I don't understand, is why.

According to the previous year's rankings, it was supposed to be #1. Looking back, it's #12. Levi Jones played in games 1-3. He was injured most of the season, missed week 15, played as a sub in week 16, and left early in week 17. The offense revolves as much around that offensive line as it does around Palmer.

I think Palmer makes progress this year because he'll be focused on improving instead of rehabbing. Unfortunately, I think they take a step back with the loss of Steinbach and, to a lesser extent, Simmons.

 

[Despyzer]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals..

I don't get it either. The Bengals have one winning season in the four seasons under Marvin Lewis. What have they done to demonstrably improve this offseason?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals..

I don't get it either. The Bengals have one winning season in the four seasons under Marvin Lewis. What have they done to demonstrably improve this offseason?

 

[D_House]

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

McGahee. I watched more Buffalo games than I would like to have last year, and he looked really, really good. He didn't put up the numbers because he was facing eight or nine men in the box almost every down, but he made the defense work and he got just about everything he could have on that team. The only reason Buffalo's passing game seemed to improve is that people were daring Losman to throw. The problem isn't whether Lynch is good, which is still up in the air, it's whether Lee Evans and Peerless Price are good enough to scare anyone. I think Evans is going to drop off in a big way when teams realize they don't have to overcommit to stopping Lynch. That offense is a mess. Buffalo had a good draft, but all they did was plug holes that opened up from their marginal team last year. I see them as a 6-10 team this year.

I watched a lot Bills games too. I have just about the opposite impression of McGahee's play. He is no doubt a strong back, and hard to bring down, but he was tentative behind the line, had no burst, and was a non-factor in the passing game. His inability or lack of desire to pass block was also a major liability, and was why you would see Shaud Williams or A-Train in on third down. Lynch is a more complete back in terms of his involvement in the passing game (he often lined up in the slot at Cal), and from all reports is a willing blocker.Additionally, the passing game improved last year when the pass protection improved as a result of personnel changes. Jason Peters to left tackle and the insertion of younger, faster guys on the right side of the line made a big difference. Expect both the passing and the running games to improve with the FA additions to the line.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

The Bengals went 8-8 with the toughest SOS while playing musical O-line and musical linebackers. Carson wasn't 100% either. The schedule is easier this year and they have an improved D.

Why wasn't Carson 100%? The Bengals lost their last 3 games of the season, and won their first three games of the season. If that was reversed, maybe I'd agree with you.I have the Bengals with the 12th hardest schedule, not the first. Significant difference there.

I think people try to make excuses for the Bengals. What I don't understand, is why.

According to the previous year's rankings, it was supposed to be #1. Looking back, it's #12. Levi Jones played in games 1-3. He was injured most of the season, missed week 15, played as a sub in week 16, and left early in week 17. The offense revolves as much around that offensive line as it does around Palmer.

I think Palmer makes progress this year because he'll be focused on improving instead of rehabbing. Unfortunately, I think they take a step back with the loss of Steinbach and, to a lesser extent, Simmons.

The Jones comment is a fair one. I don't think the Palmer one is. He threw 28 TDs, 13 INTs, and averaged 7.8 Y/A last year. He actually averaged slightly more adjusted yards per pass in 2006 than 2005. If the reason the Bengals are going to be better this year than last year is because of improvement from Palmer, I am simply not buying it. (And while Palmer was technically QB1 in 2005 and QB5 in 2006, what does that really mean? His overall VBD rank was 20 both years, and he had four more points of VBD in 2006 than 2005. It's just that in 2005, Vick didn't run for 1K yards, Brees didn't play for the Saints, Manning didn't go crazy, and Bulger didn't stay healthy).

Cincinnati can pass the ball, yes. And pass it really, really well. But that's about it. Rudi Johnson is a good -- maybe even a very good RB -- but Cincinnati was not a good running team last year (but they were in 2005).

 

[bostonfred]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals..

I don't get it either. The Bengals have one winning season in the four seasons under Marvin Lewis. What have they done to demonstrably improve this offseason?

Upgraded Tory James and gotten Levi Jones healthy. They also lost Steinbach and Simmons. The reason I think they're playoff contenders is that they were a good playoff team two years ago and looked likely to beat the eventual Superbowl champ Steelers until Palmer went down. I can write off last year as the year Palmer returned from injury and Levi was hurt all season more easily than I can write off that year as a fluke. Of course, this year they've already lost another stud offensive lineman, so there is a cap on my enthusiasm.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't understand the love for the Bengals. They were good but not great in 2005. They went 8-8 last year. They mostly got beaten by the better teams. They split with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but lost to Indy, Denver, SD. The Saints win was nice, but somewhat fluky considering how New Orleans went up and down the field on them. What do they do well besides pass the ball? Seriously? We've got a one dimensional team that lost it's number 3 WR. Their rushing attack is below average, and their defense is terrible. I called them overrated last year, and I'm standing by it this year. The casual fan sees an awesome QB and an awesome (and loud) WR and assumes a good team. Not the case.

The Bengals went 8-8 with the toughest SOS while playing musical O-line and musical linebackers. Carson wasn't 100% either. The schedule is easier this year and they have an improved D.

Why wasn't Carson 100%? The Bengals lost their last 3 games of the season, and won their first three games of the season. If that was reversed, maybe I'd agree with you.I have the Bengals with the 12th hardest schedule, not the first. Significant difference there.

I think people try to make excuses for the Bengals. What I don't understand, is why.

According to the previous year's rankings, it was supposed to be #1. Looking back, it's #12. Levi Jones played in games 1-3. He was injured most of the season, missed week 15, played as a sub in week 16, and left early in week 17. The offense revolves as much around that offensive line as it does around Palmer.

I think Palmer makes progress this year because he'll be focused on improving instead of rehabbing. Unfortunately, I think they take a step back with the loss of Steinbach and, to a lesser extent, Simmons.

The Jones comment is a fair one. I don't think the Palmer one is. He threw 28 TDs, 13 INTs, and averaged 7.8 Y/A last year. He actually averaged slightly more adjusted yards per pass in 2006 than 2005. If the reason the Bengals are going to be better this year than last year is because of improvement from Palmer, I am simply not buying it. (And while Palmer was technically QB1 in 2005 and QB5 in 2006, what does that really mean? His overall VBD rank was 20 both years, and he had four more points of VBD in 2006 than 2005. It's just that in 2005, Vick didn't run for 1K yards, Brees didn't play for the Saints, Manning didn't go crazy, and Bulger didn't stay healthy).

Cincinnati can pass the ball, yes. And pass it really, really well. But that's about it. Rudi Johnson is a good -- maybe even a very good RB -- but Cincinnati was not a good running team last year (but they were in 2005).

I don't think we're that far off here. Palmer appeared to be emerging as a super stud before the injury. Last year, you said he was about the same as he was before the injury. I think he's still got another level of improvement left in him. Rudi's numbers dropped off because the left side of their line wasn't as strong. I'd expect another "down" year from him this year, although he was still pretty good last year.

 

[bostonfred]

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

McGahee. I watched more Buffalo games than I would like to have last year, and he looked really, really good. He didn't put up the numbers because he was facing eight or nine men in the box almost every down, but he made the defense work and he got just about everything he could have on that team. The only reason Buffalo's passing game seemed to improve is that people were daring Losman to throw. The problem isn't whether Lynch is good, which is still up in the air, it's whether Lee Evans and Peerless Price are good enough to scare anyone. I think Evans is going to drop off in a big way when teams realize they don't have to overcommit to stopping Lynch. That offense is a mess. Buffalo had a good draft, but all they did was plug holes that opened up from their marginal team last year. I see them as a 6-10 team this year.

I watched a lot Bills games too. I have just about the opposite impression of McGahee's play. He is no doubt a strong back, and hard to bring down, but he was tentative behind the line, had no burst, and was a non-factor in the passing game. His inability or lack of desire to pass block was also a major liability, and was why you would see Shaud Williams or A-Train in on third down. Lynch is a more complete back in terms of his involvement in the passing game (he often lined up in the slot at Cal), and from all reports is a willing blocker.Additionally, the passing game improved last year when the pass protection improved as a result of personnel changes. Jason Peters to left tackle and the insertion of younger, faster guys on the right side of the line made a big difference. Expect both the passing and the running games to improve with the FA additions to the line.

Agree about the receiving and pass blocking. I don't expect the Bills to make a big step forward in pass blocking with a rookie starter, though. I disagree about the burst, though. I thought he had great burst through no holes. If he was tentative, it seemed like it was because he was trying to avoid the inevitable onslaught of defenders. I think he's going to do a lot better in Baltimore, but I'm not convinced that Lynch will run the ball much better than McGahee in Buffalo.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Of course, this year they've already lost another stud offensive lineman, so there is a cap on my enthusiasm.

I think Whitworth will do a better job of replacing Steinbach than most people think. Offensive line is not the biggest concern for the Bengals.That defense is going to be bottom tier, IMO.

 

[DocNiner52]

1. New England Patriots

2. Denver Broncos

3. San Diego Chargers

4. Indianapolis Colts

5. Pittsburgh Steelers

That's how I see them. Pre-Moss trade I was picking the Broncos as the AFC superbowl representative. I still do but think it's a toss up between them and the Patriots to carry the AFC flag.

 

[switz]

Who would that be? Clements? Baker-Fletcher? McGahee?McGahee is easily replacable with Lynch. Same with Poz and Fletcher. It remains to be seen how much losing Clements affects them. I'd say it's marginal as Clements was overrated and Youboty could easily step in. If not, then that's a trouble spot.

McGahee. I watched more Buffalo games than I would like to have last year, and he looked really, really good. He didn't put up the numbers because he was facing eight or nine men in the box almost every down, but he made the defense work and he got just about everything he could have on that team. The only reason Buffalo's passing game seemed to improve is that people were daring Losman to throw. The problem isn't whether Lynch is good, which is still up in the air, it's whether Lee Evans and Peerless Price are good enough to scare anyone. I think Evans is going to drop off in a big way when teams realize they don't have to overcommit to stopping Lynch. That offense is a mess. Buffalo had a good draft, but all they did was plug holes that opened up from their marginal team last year. I see them as a 6-10 team this year.

I watched a lot Bills games too. I have just about the opposite impression of McGahee's play. He is no doubt a strong back, and hard to bring down, but he was tentative behind the line, had no burst, and was a non-factor in the passing game. His inability or lack of desire to pass block was also a major liability, and was why you would see Shaud Williams or A-Train in on third down. Lynch is a more complete back in terms of his involvement in the passing game (he often lined up in the slot at Cal), and from all reports is a willing blocker.Additionally, the passing game improved last year when the pass protection improved as a result of personnel changes. Jason Peters to left tackle and the insertion of younger, faster guys on the right side of the line made a big difference. Expect both the passing and the running games to improve with the FA additions to the line.

Agree about the receiving and pass blocking. I don't expect the Bills to make a big step forward in pass blocking with a rookie starter, though. I disagree about the burst, though. I thought he had great burst through no holes. If he was tentative, it seemed like it was because he was trying to avoid the inevitable onslaught of defenders. I think he's going to do a lot better in Baltimore, but I'm not convinced that Lynch will run the ball much better than McGahee in Buffalo.

He had as much "burst" as ATrain - that line made ATrain look good. McGahee should have looked better, but he didn't. You'll see in BMore this season. McGahee is about as overrated as they come right now.

 

[Kit Fisto]

He had as much "burst" as ATrain - that line made ATrain look good. McGahee should have looked better, but he didn't. You'll see in BMore this season. McGahee is about as overrated as they come right now.

Can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Switz, but he's right.McGahee is a mediocre NFL RB.