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!

Which team has the best overall offense? (1 Viewer)

doggie biscuits?

  • Colts

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • KC

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oakland

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • St Louis

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NE

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Detroit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carolina

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Denver

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • TB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wash

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
With Favre at QB ( He has had monster seasons even after loosing key O-line guys in the past ) With depth at WR. With Bubba in camp and happy and with Green and Davenport looking quick and better in the dump-off game than last couple of years and with a defense that will demand an urgency to score I'm surprised to see the Pack getting so little love. Remember the pack lost Adam Timmerman to St. Louis, Joe Andruzzi NE, Ross Verba Cle. etc. etc. in the past and came back with strong offenses even with much weaker WR depth!
Your bolded comment shows you're missing the point....I'm not asking who will score the most or which offense is in the best situation to put up big points. Therefore, defense doesn't matter at all...I'm simply asking who the best is.Let me put it another way: Totally forget every team's schedule, coach, defense, special teams, home field, etc. Just focus on their offense. Now which one is the best?
OK - now I get it! You want to know which offense is best, not which offense will score the most points, produce the most yards, yield the most big plays, produce the most fantasy points and be the most consistant.In that case I'll take Indy cause they got Manning man!

 
You're missing the point. No "other" option was needed here because I havn't seen one person that truly wanted to vote for Seattle, even though some felt they should've at least been included. However, a lot of people did want to vote for Washington. Now whether or not those people are idiots, smart voters, or guys trying to ruin a poll is anybody's guess. But I don't care about that....they wanted to vote for Washington so I gave them that chance- bottom line.
Actually, YOU'VE missed the point. Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces. You have no reason to believe that they voted for Washington because it was the best offense, instead of that they voted for Washington because it was the most laughably ridiculous offense included. If you replace Washington with Chicago, I bet it would have gotten just as many votes. So what about those people who would have voted Chicago? Why didn't you give them that chance- bottom line?And if your poll is so great, how come New Orleans doesn't have a single vote? Where was your research there?
Nobody would've voted for Chicago imho. Please show me one person who would've. As for "Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces"- havn't I already addresses that a few posts ago? None of the Colts or Chiefs voters have either....why aren't you calling those voters out?
Not to drag anyone into this, but I bet this member would have voted for Chicago: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showuser=1691
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me put it another way: Totally forget every team's schedule, coach, defense, special teams, home field, etc. Just focus on their offense. Now which one is the best?
Washington of course :loco:
I said this a few times already, but just to be clear:I am not saying washington has a good offense. I think they have a poor offense in fact.

 
You're missing my point.

I DON'T CARE THE REASONING BEHIND WHY PEOPLE VOTE FOR WHO THEY DO. If you say that people only vote for Washington out of comedy, thats fine- I don't care. All I know is that Seattle would not have as many votes as Washington if they were in the poll. Therefore I didn't include them. If people want to use their vote to be comedians, then thats fine with me. I just provide choices that people like.

I may have miscalculated with N.O. or maybe the N.O. voters just havn't turned out yet or maybe there was no "correct" option to put into that slot because none of them would've gotten votes so N.O. is just as good as anyone else to be in it.

I hope I have answered all of your questions regarding poll-making. I'd be glad to answer any more you have, though.
No, YOU are missing MY point. My point is that there are going to be people who vote for the most RIDICULOUS option no matter WHAT it is, so the fact that people voted for Washington does not confirm your greatness as a pollster, it simply confirms that people vote for ridiculous options. If Chicago had been the ridiculous option, people who voted for Washington would instead have voted for Chicago. If Miami of Ohio had been the ridiculous option, people who voted for Washington would instead have voted for Miami of Ohio. If Ryan Leaf had been the option, people who voted for Washington would have instead voted for Ryan Leaf. The goal of any poll isn't to contain all of the most popular answers. That's polling with an agenda, and that introduces BIAS into the poll which inevitably renders them meaningless. The goal of all polls should be to get as accurate and reasonable of an answer as possible. Just like you will never see "Carrot Top" on a "who are you voting for?" poll, so should you never see "Washington" on a "Who is the best offense in the NFL?" poll.Also, again, if you've done all this research that led you to believe Washington would be a popular option, I challenge you to reveal what lead you to that conclusion. Produce a single poster who honestly believes that Washington is the best offense in the NFL. There had to have been at least one for your "research" to turn up. I don't see him anywhere. Perhaps I'm missing something.

If your stated goal is to cover all bases, then this poll was a failure. We've already had two people say they would have voted for Chicago, and yet Chicago is not an option. There isn't even a "Other (please specify)" option. Seattle is not an option. Minnesota is not an option. You're the only person defending this poll, here. Don't you wonder why that is?

 
This poll is plain stupid. You mention you are trying to get a consensus. For the sake of argument, if Washington was the consensus, what in the hell does that prove?I agree that you are the master poll creator! Heck, I think you could smoke everyone's polls.If you want to garner a job as a poll "creator", the application line for the USA Today is that way>>>>>>>>>>>

 
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.

 
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.
Sig bet says that the Vikes aren't a top 3 offense either in scoring or total yards this year. You up to it?
 
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.
Sig bet says that the Vikes aren't a top 3 offense either in scoring or total yards this year. You up to it?
With all your sig bets your signature is going to be a mile long!No thanks, sig bets are not my thing. If I were going to do one, which I am not, I would want it on the Vikes rating higher than Oaktown. Suffice it to say that everyone knows the Vikes would have done well on this poll. That does not mean that they will be a top offense, but most people think they will.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.
Sig bet says that the Vikes aren't a top 3 offense either in scoring or total yards this year. You up to it?
With all your sig bets your signature is going to be a mile long!No thanks, sig bets are not my thing. If I were going to do one, which I am not, I would want it on the Vikes rating higher than Oaktown. Suffice it to say that everyone knows the Vikes would have done well on this poll. That does not mean that they will be a top offense, but most people think they will.
This thread went 4 pages before anyone mentioned the Vikes IIRC.
 
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.
Sig bet says that the Vikes aren't a top 3 offense either in scoring or total yards this year. You up to it?
With all your sig bets your signature is going to be a mile long!No thanks, sig bets are not my thing. If I were going to do one, which I am not, I would want it on the Vikes rating higher than Oaktown. Suffice it to say that everyone knows the Vikes would have done well on this poll. That does not mean that they will be a top offense, but most people think they will.
This thread went 4 pages before anyone mentioned the Vikes IIRC.
why not a sig bet for top 13 since 13 teams are listed and not Minny? up for it?
 
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.
Sig bet says that the Vikes aren't a top 3 offense either in scoring or total yards this year. You up to it?
With all your sig bets your signature is going to be a mile long!No thanks, sig bets are not my thing. If I were going to do one, which I am not, I would want it on the Vikes rating higher than Oaktown. Suffice it to say that everyone knows the Vikes would have done well on this poll. That does not mean that they will be a top offense, but most people think they will.
This thread went 4 pages before anyone mentioned the Vikes IIRC.
why not a sig bet for top 13 since 13 teams are listed and not Minny? up for it?
Holy ####, are we going to go through this again?? For the last time: I didn't include the top 13 teams. I included the 13 teams that I thought would get the most votes. I could've been wrong about the ones that I included, but thats what I included.
 
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
Yeah right...Lose moss and the best offense in the league becomes worhtless right?

there are only 2 good answers in this poll, Indy and the Vikes. Since one was left off, indy is the clear choice.
you still around?
 
If you're going to include Washington you may as well include San Fran, Miami, and Houston. The fact that the Skins have the 3rd most votes at this posting is proof positive that these polls are utterly without merit.
I'm wondering why they were even included.
Gee, maybe it's because their offense is ranked in the top 10 despite having looked absolutely horrible for the first 1.9 games, and only having played 5 games total. Nah, can't be that. :popcorn: EDIT = Just realized the date on this thread. :nerd:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top