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!
New England AT Dallas Oct 14th (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter culdeus
- Start date
duaneok66
Footballguy
Dallas has no chance against the Patriots, and this is coming from a Colts fan . . . Dallas's defense will do them in . . .
simmonjm
Footballguy
I cant wait. After tonight the way Romo was playing you cant count the Cowboys out. Especially if they get a healthy Newman and Ellis and maybe by that time Terry Glenn back.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
C'mon. They have more than a good chance.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Remember in '03 when everyone was putting the Chiefs in the Super Bowl as they raced to a 9-0 start? Why am I bringing this up? To demonstrate that it is silly to put any team in the Super Bowl when it is still September.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Patriots will have Harrison back for that game, too. Should be a good one.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I'll take New England and lay 9.5.
tbbucs4eva
Footballguy
definitely gonna be worth watching
duaneok66
Footballguy
what he said . . .
Jagerbomber
Footballguy
No chance's a little strong but in the end New England has a bit too much offense for Dallas' D, which to me is still suspect (Rexie can make some D's look like the Steel Curtain).
simmonjm
Footballguy
Bet accepted. You do know this game is in Dallas right?
duaneok66
Footballguy
and tonight's game was in Chicago . . .
I'd bet you all day with that line. Shoot, if Buffalo got 16 I'd take Dallas plus 9.5 to the bank.There's not a team playing better football than the Patriots right now but giving Dallas that many points is crazy. Anything is possible.......a Philly fan who decided to give 30 points to the Lions would have covered today too but Dallas and that many points is solid.
Yah, and what's your point......LOL
Dallas looks pretty good,but nobody is in the same league as the Patriots.I think the Pat's will be favored by 7.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
In the first halves of games this year, Dallas has outscored its opponent 30-25.
In the first halves of games this year, NE has outscored its opponents 55-14.
In the first halves of games this year, NE has outscored its opponents 55-14.
duaneok66
Footballguy
There is a "game of the year" or the "Super Bowl preview" every other week . . .But Fox said the Bears-Chargers was the SB XLII preview. I saw it on their Week 1 pregame show and everything.
The Jerk
Footballguy
Did you need theThere is a "game of the year" or the "Super Bowl preview" every other week . . .But Fox said the Bears-Chargers was the SB XLII preview. I saw it on their Week 1 pregame show and everything.
thingee?
zoonation
Footballguy
wow...that is bold. I would never lay that many points against an offense like Dallas...especially on the road.
The Jerk
Footballguy
I understand the fascination with these two teams and their game in particular given how strong they have looked and their prolific offenses thus far in 2007. You'd hardly know from the media that the previous two SB winners are also both 3-0.
I know Dallas is always a media darling team and NE has 3 Lombardis this decade and the media has been "focused" (get it?) on them off the field as well so far this year.
Still, interesting how quietly the Colts and Steelers have gone 3-0.
I know Dallas is always a media darling team and NE has 3 Lombardis this decade and the media has been "focused" (get it?) on them off the field as well so far this year.
Still, interesting how quietly the Colts and Steelers have gone 3-0.
pinequick
Footballguy
??? They play four quarters, right?Dallas outscored Chicago tonight 31-7 in the second half.
The Jerk
Footballguy
Hey, I've got one.The Rams have outscored their opponents 23-17 in the first halves of games this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Interesting stat.Would be particularly relevant if NFL games were played in one half, I imagine.
Routilla
Footballguy
Agreed. PIT has looked pretty good though against CLE-BUF-SF. SF is not that bad though. NE destroyed SD at home and this makes me think they are the best in the AFC right now. IND is 3-0 with a few close wins but they have Manning who is the best QB IMO. CHI does not have a big offense but a good defense so I'd like to think Dallas can score points with anyone. The Dallas defense is still a ? though. They need to improve on that side of the ball before they face big offenses. The NYG scored 35 on them and MIA scored 20 so that's gotta be a concern before we discuss teams like NE and IND. PIT does not seem to have the same explosive offense but their DEF looks pretty solid right now.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
It would be more relevant if NFL games were played in one half. It's still highly relevant in this particular instance, though. YMMV.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
It's not just how good their offenses have looked. It's that they've both destroyed teams that were supposed to be good. The Patriots have blown out a schedule that went a combined 31-17 last year, and they still lead the league in points allowed and in net points. The Cowboys lead the NFC in points allowed and net points, despite playing a schedule that went a combined 29-19 last year. They're also one of two NFC teams that's 3-0, and it seems like the media is afraid to put Green Bay in the upper echelon for the time being, so they've become the de facto NFC favorite. The Steelers are very close to the Patriots, and ahead of the Cowboys, in net points. The difference is that they've played Cleveland, Buffalo and San Francisco, not one of which went to the playoffs last year. It looks like they're one of the top teams in the NFL, but they haven't played anyone. And the Colts have struggled a little to beat Houston and Tennessee, although both teams have looked surprisingly good this eyar, and the Colts have played them in back to back road games. So while they look good, and have certainly gotten a lot of press this year in their own right, they're not getting the same kind of awe from the press that the Pats are right now. I think the Pats-Colts game in Indy is going to be much more hyped than this one, though, and the Pats-Steelers game later in the season should be equally highly hyped if both teams continue to do well.
How???
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
The game today got out of control once the Cowboys had a large lead. The final score didn't show the difference between the two teams, because the 'Boys got some late TDs on an exhausted and injured Bears team. The Patriots aren't going to be behind by 7 points in the 4th quarter, and certainly aren't going to then get outscored by another 17 points. The Cowboys got a late run up the score TD against the Fins, and the 17 point final margin doesn't reflect that this was actually a game in the 4th quarter. Dallas was in close games with Miami, Chicago and New York. New England blew out New York (A), Buffalo and San Diego. New England beat tougher teams (the Jets are better than Miami, and beat them; the Chargers are better than the Bears, and beat them) and by much wider margins. The Cowboys ran the score up late, but they're not nearly as good as New England. Not in the same league as them right now.
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Would you want to spot this Patriots team a two-touchdown lead at halftime and feel confident about coming back?How???
The Jerk
Footballguy
All the Steelers have proven is that they can convincingly beat bad teams. Of course, if they could have done that in 2006, they'd have made the playoffs (Raiders). I have no problem with NE being at the top of the list. However, they've beaten three teams that are collectively 2-7. Today the Chargers showed that they are not to be confused with last year's SD, at least in September. And it's not just the uniform changes. The Colts are interesting, as they seem to be intent on perfecting the art of winning close games. They appear to have the ability to raise their game a few notches when needed.I'd rank them NE, INDY, PITT at this point. Dallas has looked impressive, but their opponents are also a collective 2-7. Still, I could see them on either side of the Steelers. But it's only the first day of autumn. Way too early...
bostonfred
Footballguy
The Chargers beat the Bears in week one. The Bears' only other loss was to a 3-0 Cowboys team. The Chargers' two losses have also been to 3-0 Patriots and Packers teams. It's way too early to judge the Chargers or Bears too harshly on any of those losses.
The Jerk
Footballguy
I don't necessarily disagree with you at all.However, those six teams that the Cowboys and Patriots have beaten are a combined 4-14, meaning they are 4-8 in games against other teams. Not exactly juggernaut material. Frankly, these teams look like they were a bunch of paper tigers last year. Either that, or it's the old Jerry Glanville line about what the NFL stands for: not for long. As Joe Bryant likes to say, things change quickly around here.I'll upset Chase, but the 2006 Jets were one of the weakest playoff teams in NFL history, as they only defeated one team with a winning record. And the Giants were 8-8, losing seven of their final nine games counting the playoffs. The Bills also beat only one team with a winning record last year -- that would be the Jets. The Dolphins did come on strong by the end of last season, actually beating three playoff teams (Bears, Chiefs, Pats). At least at this point, the Bears and Chargers are not even close to the level they played at last year. Plus, they played each other, so one of them had to win that game.The Steelers and Packers opponents are not much better, at 3-6 each. And I'm not convinced either team is a legitimate contender. I'm not suggesting the Patriots and Cowboys don't deserve the attention, just that those 2006 records of the teams they have beaten this year figure to be much better than these same team's 2007 records.
The Jerk
Footballguy
Fair enough, but they just don't look like the teams they were last season. I'm not just looking at their record and game scores. I've seen nearly two full games by both teams, and so far they are just not the same teams. It is only September, and it's understandable that the Chargers would perhaps need time to adjust to losing the HC, OC and DC, and that the Bears are in the SB hangover mode that seems to plague every SB loser the following season. I expect each team will make the playoffs and be much stronger in December and January. I'm only trying to establish that while they were two of the top 5-6 teams last year, they are just mediocre right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
They lost in the final minute to the SB Champions, beat the second best team in the league on the road, and nearly beat the NFC SB representative (the Jets outplayed the Bears in the first half, and a backup CB slip in the 4th quarter was the only TD of the game). They went 10-6 despite playing in one of the toughest conferences in modern history and having one of the more difficult schedules in the league. There have been many weak playoff teams in NFL history; for example, the 2006 Seattle Seahawks and the 2006 New York Giants. The Jets were better than Seattle, New York, Dallas, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Seattle and maybe New Orleans last year.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Seems like I'm alone on this, but I just don't think Dallas is that good.
The Jerk
Footballguy
That's all good. They still only beat one team with a winning record last year. I disagree over schedule difficulty as well. The Steelers and Bengals were arguably better than all of those teams you listed. The thing the Jets did is they won the games against those weaker teams, whereas the Steelers were losing games to the Raiders and Falcons, and the Bengals lost to the Falcons and Bucs. I see you especially think that the Jets were better than Seattle.
I know they're your boys. It's just a difference of opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Jerk
Footballguy
Jets 2006 opponents by wins:2: Oakland3: Detroit4: Cleveland6: Miami (twice), Houston, Minnesota7: Buffalo (twice)8: Tennessee, Jacksonville, Green Bay12: New England (twice), Indianapolis13: ChicagoCumulative record: 120-136Break it down how you will. Four games against playoff teams and 12+ win teams is respectable.However, 12 games against teams 8-8 or worse, and 7 games against teams 6-10 or worse is not exactly running the gauntlet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I fail to see how losing to weaker teams is a sign that you're better than a good team. The best indicator of how good a team is, IMO, is how they do against bad teams. Good teams don't lose to bad teams very often. If you're losing to the Raiders/Falcons/Bucs a couple of times a year, you're not very good. I agree that Cin, Pit (and more so, Jacksonville) were pretty good last year. I find it funny that you picked those teams, though. The Steelers were 0-4 against the best teams in the league and the Bengals were 1-4 against the best teams in the league.That's all good. They still only beat one team with a winning record last year. I disagree over schedule difficulty as well. The Steelers and Bengals were arguably better than all of those teams you listed. The thing the Jets did is they won the games against those weaker teams, whereas the Steelers were losing games to the Raiders and Falcons, and the Bengals lost to the Falcons and Bucs. I see you especially think that the Jets were better than Seattle.I know they're your boys. It's just a difference of opinion.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
It's not bold, it's wack.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
The Bills were one of the best teams in the league last year. They had the second hardest schedule in the league last year. The Titans were one of the best teams in the league last year, and faced the hardest schedule in the league (although to be fair, the Jets played the Titans before Young took over).http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl06.htm -- puts the Jets as the 7th best team last year
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=372 -- puts the Jets as the 13th best team last year
Those take into account SOS.
The Jerk
Footballguy
You missed the cumulative record of 120-136. I fail to see that as one of the more difficult schedules in the league.
The Jerk
Footballguy
I did not say the Bengals or Steelers were better than the Jets, just that they were arguably better than all of the NFC playoff teams save Chicago and the Chiefs. Those are the teams you listed, not me. Specifically, the Steelers beat the Chiefs 45-7 and the Saints 38-31 (although both at home). The Bengals beat the Chiefs 23-10 and the Saints 31-16, both on the road.I fail to see how losing to weaker teams is a sign that you're better than a good team. The best indicator of how good a team is, IMO, is how they do against bad teams. Good teams don't lose to bad teams very often. If you're losing to the Raiders/Falcons/Bucs a couple of times a year, you're not very good. I agree that Cin, Pit (and more so, Jacksonville) were pretty good last year. I find it funny that you picked those teams, though. The Steelers were 0-4 against the best teams in the league and the Bengals were 1-4 against the best teams in the league.That's all good. They still only beat one team with a winning record last year. I disagree over schedule difficulty as well. The Steelers and Bengals were arguably better than all of those teams you listed. The thing the Jets did is they won the games against those weaker teams, whereas the Steelers were losing games to the Raiders and Falcons, and the Bengals lost to the Falcons and Bucs. I see you especially think that the Jets were better than Seattle.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
You should check the Chargers schedule last year. I'd like to see what you thought of that.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Of the teams with the seven hardest schedules in the league (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl06.htm), the Jets played them 10 times. Do you see why their opponent's cumulative record will be misleading? 10 games is an insane amount against those seven teams (and the Jets had the 8th hardest schedule), so it's not going to be really useful to check cumulative record. New England, Miami, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Houston, Indianapolis and Tennessee were all better than their raw numbers suggested.
The Jerk
Footballguy
Actually, when I think of Chargers and schedule, I think of 2005. They were easily one of the ten best teams in the NFL, but could only go 9-7 against a brutal schedule. Sort of like Cincinnati last year:Cincinnati 2006 schedule by wins:2: Oakland4: Tampa Bay, Cleveland (twice)7: Atlanta8: Pittsburgh (twice), Carolina9: Kansas City, Denver10: New Orleans12: Indianapolis, New England13: Baltimore (twice)14: San DiegoCumulative record: 133-123, including 8 games against teams with a winning record, 7 gams against playoff teams
The Jerk
Footballguy
I'll take Cincinnati's schedule over the Jets. Look, I'll save everyone the grief of complaining over the thread being completely run down in this discussion, and just say you win. You're right that the Jets were one of the best playoff teams of recent years. Their schedule was incredibly difficult, and but for a bounce or two, they might have won the championship.
