Who is the most overrated team this year? (1 Viewer)

[MLBrandow]

Discuss.

I'll start off and say the Dolphins by a lot. They were terrible before Ricky Williams came back, and undefeated as soon as he got back in game shape. Seems like everyone is predicting the Dolphins to either make the playoffs or win the Division, and it's wholly undeserved IMO.

Let's get the gloves on.

I'd like to include the Vikings as well.... although I'm not actually sure a lot of people are sold that they will be any good to begin with.

 

[Texasmouth]

Culpepper to Chambers, Booker and McMicheal will be huge.

The Dolphins were good last year at every position except QB- been addressed.

Ronnie Brown has another year of the same offense under his belt.

 

[Jous]

The Dolphins and the Redskins.

The Fins' defense wasn't up to par with what it usually is last year, and they're another year older now. Expect to see a middle of the road defense. I don't think Culpepper will be back right away, and that will hurt the offense as well...plus I question their offensive line. Look for the Dolphins to be 8-8.

And the Redskins had a great stretch in which they were extremely dominant at the end of the year, but prior to that they were a below average team at 5-6. As history shows, usually the TRUE team in situations like that is NOT the team that dominated at the end, nor the bad team in the beginning. They'll be somewhere in between. I look for the Redskins to finish anywhere from 6-10 and 8-8, in that hard division.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

The Cowboys.

Take a look at how Bledsoe did in Cowboy losses last season and ask yourself if you feel comfortable with his consistency from game-to-game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the Redskins had a great stretch in which they were extremely dominant at the end of the year, but prior to that they were a below average team at 5-6. As history shows, usually the TRUE team in situations like that is NOT the team that dominated at the end, nor the bad team in the beginning. They'll be somewhere in between. I look for the Redskins to finish anywhere from 6-10 and 8-8, in that hard division.

Can you expound on this a bit Jous?

 

[Jous]

Eh, yea...that'll take a while for me to actually get and show examples, I was just using memory. I'll have stuff to back my cause later on tonight.

 

[Jous]

but for a quickie example off the top of my head, The Buffalo Bills of 2004-2005.

 

[Chase Stuart]

but for a quickie example off the top of my head, The Buffalo Bills of 2004-2005.

I'm not sure how that supports your claim. They weren't somewhere in between horrible and great (they were horrible in 2005) and a significant percentage of that is because Drew Bledsoe left town.

 

[gocats]

The Bucs

with that line, that qb, and that overrated defense I just see this team as a 2006 version of the 04 cowboys

 

[Jous]

Alright, so sometimes they're not just inbetween, they can be downright terrible...I just wanted to show that the real versions of teams are usually not the team that goes on a dominating tear at the end of a season.

Bledsoe was a reason why, but I'm pretty sure that it was a small reason why. Most Bills fans will tell you Bledsoe was terrible in 2003-2004, and just didn't screw up enough while the rest of the team worked their magic in the 2nd half of 2004. In 2005, the defense took a HUGE step back, going from 3rd in the league (I think?) to a veyr low ranking...I think in the late 20's. That and the fact that the o-line and McGahee underachieved.

If the run game and defense in 2005 played like they did in 2004, I think even with Losman the Bills would've made the playoffs.

 

[SSOG]

Discuss.

I'll start off and say the Dolphins by a lot. They were terrible before Ricky Williams came back, and undefeated as soon as he got back in game shape. Seems like everyone is predicting the Dolphins to either make the playoffs or win the Division, and it's wholly undeserved IMO.

Let's get the gloves on.

You will get no arguement from me about the Dolphins. Everyone knows they won their last 6 games of the season. What everyone DOESN'T know is that they came against 4-12 Oakland, 5-11 Buffalo, the 4-12 Jets, and 4-12 Tennessee... with the Buffalo and New York wins coming AT HOME and by a COMBINED 5 POINTS. That hardly impresses me.As for the other two wins... there was the win against New England's second string where people speculated that New England LOST ON PURPOSE, and then there's the 3-point win at San Diego. You'll get no arguements from me that that was a very good win, although it certainly wasn't a fantastic win, since it was only be 3 points, and San Diego (while a great team) was only 9-7.

So suddenly 1 quality win and 5 gimme wins to end the season make a team the hottest up-and-comer in the league?

My other choice for most overrated team in the league is... New England. They only manage to go 10-6 last year (despite playing in the easiest division in the entire NFL- well, actually, tied with the NFC North for the easiest division in the NFL- and playing 4 gimme games against Buffalo and New York). They've been hemmorhaging players for years... and yet, somehow, for some reason, they're still superbowl favorites. I don't get it at all. I honestly, truly believe that if you switched Oakland and New England last year, then New England would finish last in the AFC West and be drafting in the top 10, while Oakland would be in a dogfight with Miami for the final playoff spot. Seriously, they were a BARELY ABOVE AVERAGE TEAM last year, and they have lost talent since then, and suddenly they're among the favorites to win the superbowl again? No way.

If any of you aren't familiar with www.footballoutsiders.com ... they track every single play and compare it against league averages, adjusting for down, distance, and situation, and then use that data to come up with rankings of the team based on ACTUAL performance (rather than a few lucky bounces), adjusted for the difficulty of their schedule. On those rankings, New England actually finished ONE SLOT BELOW MIAMI at 15th overall in the NFL (Oakland was 19th). Again, you put New England in the AFC West (which actually ranked 1-2-3-4 in the NFL in strength of schedule), and New England would have gotten smacked silly by #2 Denver, #3 KC, and #8 San Diego.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Alright, so sometimes they're not just inbetween, they can be downright terrible...I just wanted to show that the real versions of teams are usually not the team that goes on a dominating tear at the end of a season.

Bledsoe was a reason why, but I'm pretty sure that it was a small reason why. Most Bills fans will tell you Bledsoe was terrible in 2003-2004, and just didn't screw up enough while the rest of the team worked their magic in the 2nd half of 2004. In 2005, the defense took a HUGE step back, going from 3rd in the league (I think?) to a veyr low ranking...I think in the late 20's. That and the fact that the o-line and McGahee underachieved.

If the run game and defense in 2005 played like they did in 2004, I think even with Losman the Bills would've made the playoffs.

Well the loss of Takeo Spikes, one of the best defensive players in the league, was a big reason.But the Bills lost other plays in free agency, so I'm not even sure what the relevance is. If a team starts off 1-6, and then goes 7-2, and then experiences significant roster turnover, I'm not sure those are the teams we want to compare the Redskins to.

Even further, Washington made some changes -- losing Arrington and Ramsey, gaining Lloyd and Randle Eel.

As for your original point, of course one example won't show who the 'real version' of those teams are. But I don't see a reason to discount the Redskins for winning lots of games at the end of the season as opposed to winning them in random bunches during the year.

 

[jurb26]

Discuss.

I'll start off and say the Dolphins by a lot. They were terrible before Ricky Williams came back, and undefeated as soon as he got back in game shape. Seems like everyone is predicting the Dolphins to either make the playoffs or win the Division, and it's wholly undeserved IMO.

Let's get the gloves on.

You will get no arguement from me about the Dolphins. Everyone knows they won their last 6 games of the season. What everyone DOESN'T know is that they came against 4-12 Oakland, 5-11 Buffalo, the 4-12 Jets, and 4-12 Tennessee... with the Buffalo and New York wins coming AT HOME and by a COMBINED 5 POINTS. That hardly impresses me.As for the other two wins... there was the win against New England's second string where people speculated that New England LOST ON PURPOSE, and then there's the 3-point win at San Diego. You'll get no arguements from me that that was a very good win, although it certainly wasn't a fantastic win, since it was only be 3 points, and San Diego (while a great team) was only 9-7.

So suddenly 1 quality win and 5 gimme wins to end the season make a team the hottest up-and-comer in the league?

My other choice for most overrated team in the league is... New England. They only manage to go 10-6 last year (despite playing in the easiest division in the entire NFL- well, actually, tied with the NFC North for the easiest division in the NFL- and playing 4 gimme games against Buffalo and New York). They've been hemmorhaging players for years... and yet, somehow, for some reason, they're still superbowl favorites. I don't get it at all. I honestly, truly believe that if you switched Oakland and New England last year, then New England would finish last in the AFC West and be drafting in the top 10, while Oakland would be in a dogfight with Miami for the final playoff spot. Seriously, they were a BARELY ABOVE AVERAGE TEAM last year, and they have lost talent since then, and suddenly they're among the favorites to win the superbowl again? No way.

If any of you aren't familiar with www.footballoutsiders.com ... they track every single play and compare it against league averages, adjusting for down, distance, and situation, and then use that data to come up with rankings of the team based on ACTUAL performance (rather than a few lucky bounces), adjusted for the difficulty of their schedule. On those rankings, New England actually finished ONE SLOT BELOW MIAMI at 15th overall in the NFL (Oakland was 19th). Again, you put New England in the AFC West (which actually ranked 1-2-3-4 in the NFL in strength of schedule), and New England would have gotten smacked silly by #2 Denver, #3 KC, and #8 San Diego.

Paralysis my numbers. Do any of those numbers factor in the injuries NE encountered last year? On top of that, you can say what you want about Mia and their "easy schedule." They can only play the teams on it. This was a team in transition last year under a new head coach. The team played better and better as the season went on. This should be expected under new leadership IMO. They should take that progression into this year and have a better understanding of the shcemes being run. My most overrated team would have to be the Colts. They seem to be the SB favorite (or at least the main one) from the AFC all the time. I highly doubt they will be playing in the SB however. I'll take them and the Cowboys. Just call it a hunch.

 

[Assani Fisher]

teams that did well last year are always overrated the next year, as people underestimate the luck factor each year in the NFL. Seattle, Pittsburgh, and Chicago in particular imo.

 

[Assani Fisher]

The Dolphins and the Redskins.

The Fins' defense wasn't up to par with what it usually is last year, and they're another year older now. Expect to see a middle of the road defense. I don't think Culpepper will be back right away, and that will hurt the offense as well...plus I question their offensive line. Look for the Dolphins to be 8-8.

And the Redskins had a great stretch in which they were extremely dominant at the end of the year, but prior to that they were a below average team at 5-6. As history shows, usually the TRUE team in situations like that is NOT the team that dominated at the end, nor the bad team in the beginning. They'll be somewhere in between. I look for the Redskins to finish anywhere from 6-10 and 8-8, in that hard division.

Are you really saying that teams that come together at the end of the year and finish strongly are likely to regress the next year? I don't have the stats to back me up, but common sense would tell me that you're wrong.

 

[Phlash]

but for a quickie example off the top of my head, The Buffalo Bills of 2004-2005.

I'm not sure how that supports your claim. They weren't somewhere in between horrible and great (they were horrible in 2005) and a significant percentage of that is because Drew Bledsoe left town.

Drew was horrendous with the Bill that season...

 

[Chase Stuart]

but for a quickie example off the top of my head, The Buffalo Bills of 2004-2005.

I'm not sure how that supports your claim. They weren't somewhere in between horrible and great (they were horrible in 2005) and a significant percentage of that is because Drew Bledsoe left town.

Drew was horrendous with the Bill that season...

On second thought, I think you're right. I didn't realize at first how similar the Buffalo QBs were in 2004 and 2005. The loss of TKO was certainly the bigger impact.

 

[Assani Fisher]

but for a quickie example off the top of my head, The Buffalo Bills of 2004-2005.

I'm not sure how that supports your claim. They weren't somewhere in between horrible and great (they were horrible in 2005) and a significant percentage of that is because Drew Bledsoe left town.

Drew was horrendous with the Bill that season...

On second thought, I think you're right. I didn't realize at first how similar the Buffalo QBs were in 2004 and 2005. The loss of TKO was certainly the bigger impact.

Even still...we could provide a few examples on each side of the argument- I hardly see how that proves anything either way. But doesn't common sense tell us that if a team finishes strongly that theres a decent chance that it finally clicked for them last year at the end and that it should carry over? If anything, ok lets say they'll have a similar record as last year. BUT I JUST CAN'T FATHOM WHY FINISHING STRONGLY WOULD NECESSARILY POINT TOWARDS A REGRESSION THE NEXT YEAR.

 

[SSOG]

Paralysis my numbers. Do any of those numbers factor in the injuries NE encountered last year? On top of that, you can say what you want about Mia and their "easy schedule." They can only play the teams on it. This was a team in transition last year under a new head coach. The team played better and better as the season went on. This should be expected under new leadership IMO. They should take that progression into this year and have a better understanding of the shcemes being run.

My most overrated team would have to be the Colts. They seem to be the SB favorite (or at least the main one) from the AFC all the time. I highly doubt they will be playing in the SB however. I'll take them and the Cowboys. Just call it a hunch.

Oh, we should upgrade New England because they dealt with injuries now? Well newsflash: All I've heard about New England for the last 3 seasons was how they dealt with severe injury problems. Which raises two points- first off, if a good team that gets hit by horrible injuries gets so much worse, then why did New England finish 2nd and 1st in 2003 and 2004 respectively (both years when New England had more signficant injury problems than last year)? Second off, if New England keeps getting hit by such huge injury problems every single season, then shouldn't we take into account the fact that they're likely to be riddled by injuries again next season when we determine how good they'll be?Either way you slice it, New England has been bitten by a severe injury bug for each of the last 3 seasons, which makes me think it's a matter of the training staff or turf and therefore likely to continue this season. Also, either way you slice it, New England regressed SIGNIFICANTLY last season compared to 3 previous seasons, and has been losing talent for years now. I think they'll be an above-average team, and they might even make the playoffs since they play in such an easy division, but a true Superbowl threat? No way.

Second off, I understand that Miami can only play the teams that they faced, and I do think they had a very strong first year under Saban. I think they'll be better this year than they were last year. Heck, I even think they have a fantastic shot at dethroning New England. I just think they're rated too highly because of their 6 straight wins (yes, you can only play who's on your schedule, but that was NOT an impressive win streak in my mind). I see them finishing a lot like Jacksonville 2005- great record, mostly because of a soft schedule, and an early exit from the playoffs. Which would still be a great step forward and a hugely successful season for the Miami Dolphins. I just don't think they're anywhere near contender status at this point.

The Dolphins and the Redskins.

The Fins' defense wasn't up to par with what it usually is last year, and they're another year older now. Expect to see a middle of the road defense. I don't think Culpepper will be back right away, and that will hurt the offense as well...plus I question their offensive line. Look for the Dolphins to be 8-8.

And the Redskins had a great stretch in which they were extremely dominant at the end of the year, but prior to that they were a below average team at 5-6. As history shows, usually the TRUE team in situations like that is NOT the team that dominated at the end, nor the bad team in the beginning. They'll be somewhere in between. I look for the Redskins to finish anywhere from 6-10 and 8-8, in that hard division.

Are you really saying that teams that come together at the end of the year and finish strongly are likely to regress the next year? I don't have the stats to back me up, but common sense would tell me that you're wrong.

I've seen the stats, and he's not wrong. Buffalo was the hottest team in the entire NFL at the end of 2004, and horrible in 2005. Baltimore opened 5-5 in 2003 with a +25 scoring differential, then went on a 5-1 tear to close the season, winning games by 38, 35, and 18 points and putting up an impressive +89 point differential... and actually finished 2004 with a WORSE record. The New York Jets were absolutely POSSESSED at the end of the 2002 season, opening up 1-4 and *still making the playoffs* on the strength of an 8-3 tear, finishing off their season with a 25 point DISMANTLING of a 12-4 Green Bay squad with everything to play for (if they won, they'd have HFA and the bye... if they lost, they were the #3 seed and had to play in wildcard weekend), and then finishing that up with a 41-0 DEMOLISHING of the Indianapolis Colts in the first round of the playoffs. I think they actually hold the record for the team with the worst start to ever reach the playoffs. Anyway, did they build on such ridiculous momentum and use it to propel them to a great season in 2003? Only if you consider 6-10 a "great season".There are a couple of counterexamples (the 1998 rams, the 2002 Titans), but for the most part, teams that finish the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-ending levels from the year before.

On second thought, I think you're right. I didn't realize at first how similar the Buffalo QBs were in 2004 and 2005. The loss of TKO was certainly the bigger impact.

You might want to revise that assessment. The Bills were horrible long before Spikes went down last season.

 

[Chase Stuart]

but for a quickie example off the top of my head, The Buffalo Bills of 2004-2005.

I'm not sure how that supports your claim. They weren't somewhere in between horrible and great (they were horrible in 2005) and a significant percentage of that is because Drew Bledsoe left town.

Drew was horrendous with the Bill that season...

On second thought, I think you're right. I didn't realize at first how similar the Buffalo QBs were in 2004 and 2005. The loss of TKO was certainly the bigger impact.

Even still...we could provide a few examples on each side of the argument- I hardly see how that proves anything either way. But doesn't common sense tell us that if a team finishes strongly that theres a decent chance that it finally clicked for them last year at the end and that it should carry over? If anything, ok lets say they'll have a similar record as last year. BUT I JUST CAN'T FATHOM WHY FINISHING STRONGLY WOULD NECESSARILY POINT TOWARDS A REGRESSION THE NEXT YEAR.

Well it's a complicated issue. And we may never have an answer, because teams change significantly every year. I don't think finishing strongly would point toward a regression. I also don't think finishing poorly would be the sign of things to come.If a team starts off great and finishes poorly, it seems just as likely that things were clicking in the beginning of the year, and maybe injuries doomed the team. Then you might think they'll be good the next year.

Or maybe teams that start off poorly but end great are more likely to do the same thing again. Perhaps the Redskins training camp prepares them for the long season but it hurts them early in the year. Finishing strongly might only be indicative of how the team will finish the next year. Logic doesn't necessarily tell us that the team "clicked finally" and that should carry over; it's certainly plausible that a team's record in games 1-8 is a better indicator of a team's record in games 1-8 next year than the team's record in the entire previous regular season. It's hard to really isolate these things.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Paralysis my numbers. Do any of those numbers factor in the injuries NE encountered last year? On top of that, you can say what you want about Mia and their "easy schedule." They can only play the teams on it. This was a team in transition last year under a new head coach. The team played better and better as the season went on. This should be expected under new leadership IMO. They should take that progression into this year and have a better understanding of the shcemes being run.

My most overrated team would have to be the Colts. They seem to be the SB favorite (or at least the main one) from the AFC all the time. I highly doubt they will be playing in the SB however. I'll take them and the Cowboys. Just call it a hunch.

Oh, we should upgrade New England because they dealt with injuries now? Well newsflash: All I've heard about New England for the last 3 seasons was how they dealt with severe injury problems. Which raises two points- first off, if a good team that gets hit by horrible injuries gets so much worse, then why did New England finish 2nd and 1st in 2003 and 2004 respectively (both years when New England had more signficant injury problems than last year)? Second off, if New England keeps getting hit by such huge injury problems every single season, then shouldn't we take into account the fact that they're likely to be riddled by injuries again next season when we determine how good they'll be?Either way you slice it, New England has been bitten by a severe injury bug for each of the last 3 seasons, which makes me think it's a matter of the training staff or turf and therefore likely to continue this season. Also, either way you slice it, New England regressed SIGNIFICANTLY last season compared to 3 previous seasons, and has been losing talent for years now. I think they'll be an above-average team, and they might even make the playoffs since they play in such an easy division, but a true Superbowl threat? No way.

Second off, I understand that Miami can only play the teams that they faced, and I do think they had a very strong first year under Saban. I think they'll be better this year than they were last year. Heck, I even think they have a fantastic shot at dethroning New England. I just think they're rated too highly because of their 6 straight wins (yes, you can only play who's on your schedule, but that was NOT an impressive win streak in my mind). I see them finishing a lot like Jacksonville 2005- great record, mostly because of a soft schedule, and an early exit from the playoffs. Which would still be a great step forward and a hugely successful season for the Miami Dolphins. I just don't think they're anywhere near contender status at this point.

The Dolphins and the Redskins.

The Fins' defense wasn't up to par with what it usually is last year, and they're another year older now. Expect to see a middle of the road defense. I don't think Culpepper will be back right away, and that will hurt the offense as well...plus I question their offensive line. Look for the Dolphins to be 8-8.

And the Redskins had a great stretch in which they were extremely dominant at the end of the year, but prior to that they were a below average team at 5-6. As history shows, usually the TRUE team in situations like that is NOT the team that dominated at the end, nor the bad team in the beginning. They'll be somewhere in between. I look for the Redskins to finish anywhere from 6-10 and 8-8, in that hard division.

Are you really saying that teams that come together at the end of the year and finish strongly are likely to regress the next year? I don't have the stats to back me up, but common sense would tell me that you're wrong.

The New York Jets were absolutely POSSESSED at the end of the 2002 season, opening up 1-4 and *still making the playoffs* on the strength of an 8-3 tear, finishing off their season with a 25 point DISMANTLING of a 12-4 Green Bay squad with everything to play for (if they won, they'd have HFA and the bye... if they lost, they were the #3 seed and had to play in wildcard weekend), and then finishing that up with a 41-0 DEMOLISHING of the Indianapolis Colts in the first round of the playoffs. I think they actually hold the record for the team with the worst start to ever reach the playoffs. Anyway, did they build on such ridiculous momentum and use it to propel them to a great season in 2003? Only if you consider 6-10 a "great season".

You do realize who the Jets QBs were at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, right?

 

[SSOG]

Well it's a complicated issue. And we may never have an answer, because teams change significantly every year. I don't think finishing strongly would point toward a regression. I also don't think finishing poorly would be the sign of things to come.

If a team starts off great and finishes poorly, it seems just as likely that things were clicking in the beginning of the year, and maybe injuries doomed the team. Then you might think they'll be good the next year.

Or maybe teams that start off poorly but end great are more likely to do the same thing again. Perhaps the Redskins training camp prepares them for the long season but it hurts them early in the year. Finishing strongly might only be indicative of how the team will finish the next year. Logic doesn't necessarily tell us that the team "clicked finally" and that should carry over; it's certainly plausible that a team's record in games 1-8 is a better indicator of a team's record in games 1-8 next year than the team's record in the entire previous regular season. It's hard to really isolate these things.

Could you perhaps look at it statistically? Pull up a sample of all teams that had a losing record in the first 8 weeks and a winning record in the last 8 weeks, and then see if they finished the next year with a better or a worse record? There will absolutely be a little bit of noise in the sample, but I would assume that the sample size would be large enough to let us draw reasonably accurate conclusions.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You might want to revise that assessment. The Bills were horrible long before Spikes went down last season.

Takeo Spikes played two complete games last year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well it's a complicated issue. And we may never have an answer, because teams change significantly every year. I don't think finishing strongly would point toward a regression. I also don't think finishing poorly would be the sign of things to come.

If a team starts off great and finishes poorly, it seems just as likely that things were clicking in the beginning of the year, and maybe injuries doomed the team. Then you might think they'll be good the next year.

Or maybe teams that start off poorly but end great are more likely to do the same thing again. Perhaps the Redskins training camp prepares them for the long season but it hurts them early in the year. Finishing strongly might only be indicative of how the team will finish the next year. Logic doesn't necessarily tell us that the team "clicked finally" and that should carry over; it's certainly plausible that a team's record in games 1-8 is a better indicator of a team's record in games 1-8 next year than the team's record in the entire previous regular season. It's hard to really isolate these things.

Could you perhaps look at it statistically? Pull up a sample of all teams that had a losing record in the first 8 weeks and a winning record in the last 8 weeks, and then see if they finished the next year with a better or a worse record? There will absolutely be a little bit of noise in the sample, but I would assume that the sample size would be large enough to let us draw reasonably accurate conclusions.

I could play around for a bit, but I don't think I know how to do that yet.

 

[SSOG]

You do realize who the Jets QBs were at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, right?

The Jets were 8-5 with Pennington starting in 2002 and 4-6 with him starting in 2003. No matter how you slice it, that's regression.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Paralysis my numbers. Do any of those numbers factor in the injuries NE encountered last year? On top of that, you can say what you want about Mia and their "easy schedule." They can only play the teams on it. This was a team in transition last year under a new head coach. The team played better and better as the season went on. This should be expected under new leadership IMO. They should take that progression into this year and have a better understanding of the shcemes being run.

My most overrated team would have to be the Colts. They seem to be the SB favorite (or at least the main one) from the AFC all the time. I highly doubt they will be playing in the SB however. I'll take them and the Cowboys. Just call it a hunch.

Oh, we should upgrade New England because they dealt with injuries now? Well newsflash: All I've heard about New England for the last 3 seasons was how they dealt with severe injury problems. Which raises two points- first off, if a good team that gets hit by horrible injuries gets so much worse, then why did New England finish 2nd and 1st in 2003 and 2004 respectively (both years when New England had more signficant injury problems than last year)? Second off, if New England keeps getting hit by such huge injury problems every single season, then shouldn't we take into account the fact that they're likely to be riddled by injuries again next season when we determine how good they'll be?Either way you slice it, New England has been bitten by a severe injury bug for each of the last 3 seasons, which makes me think it's a matter of the training staff or turf and therefore likely to continue this season. Also, either way you slice it, New England regressed SIGNIFICANTLY last season compared to 3 previous seasons, and has been losing talent for years now. I think they'll be an above-average team, and they might even make the playoffs since they play in such an easy division, but a true Superbowl threat? No way.

Second off, I understand that Miami can only play the teams that they faced, and I do think they had a very strong first year under Saban. I think they'll be better this year than they were last year. Heck, I even think they have a fantastic shot at dethroning New England. I just think they're rated too highly because of their 6 straight wins (yes, you can only play who's on your schedule, but that was NOT an impressive win streak in my mind). I see them finishing a lot like Jacksonville 2005- great record, mostly because of a soft schedule, and an early exit from the playoffs. Which would still be a great step forward and a hugely successful season for the Miami Dolphins. I just don't think they're anywhere near contender status at this point.

The Dolphins and the Redskins.

The Fins' defense wasn't up to par with what it usually is last year, and they're another year older now. Expect to see a middle of the road defense. I don't think Culpepper will be back right away, and that will hurt the offense as well...plus I question their offensive line. Look for the Dolphins to be 8-8.

And the Redskins had a great stretch in which they were extremely dominant at the end of the year, but prior to that they were a below average team at 5-6. As history shows, usually the TRUE team in situations like that is NOT the team that dominated at the end, nor the bad team in the beginning. They'll be somewhere in between. I look for the Redskins to finish anywhere from 6-10 and 8-8, in that hard division.

Are you really saying that teams that come together at the end of the year and finish strongly are likely to regress the next year? I don't have the stats to back me up, but common sense would tell me that you're wrong.

I've seen the stats, and he's not wrong. Buffalo was the hottest team in the entire NFL at the end of 2004, and horrible in 2005. Baltimore opened 5-5 in 2003 with a +25 scoring differential, then went on a 5-1 tear to close the season, winning games by 38, 35, and 18 points and putting up an impressive +89 point differential... and actually finished 2004 with a WORSE record. The New York Jets were absolutely POSSESSED at the end of the 2002 season, opening up 1-4 and *still making the playoffs* on the strength of an 8-3 tear, finishing off their season with a 25 point DISMANTLING of a 12-4 Green Bay squad with everything to play for (if they won, they'd have HFA and the bye... if they lost, they were the #3 seed and had to play in wildcard weekend), and then finishing that up with a 41-0 DEMOLISHING of the Indianapolis Colts in the first round of the playoffs. I think they actually hold the record for the team with the worst start to ever reach the playoffs. Anyway, did they build on such ridiculous momentum and use it to propel them to a great season in 2003? Only if you consider 6-10 a "great season".There are a couple of counterexamples (the 1998 rams, the 2002 Titans), but for the most part, teams that finish the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-ending levels from the year before.

You gave three examples on one side (including the Pennington example from before) and two on the other. Hardly convincing.Of course, I don't think it's surprising if it's true that teams that finish the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-ending levels from the year before. Here are some other things:

Teams that start the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-starting levels from the year before.

Teams that play the whole season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season levels from the year before.

Teams that finish the season terribly perform significantly better than at their season-ending levels from the year before.

Teams that start the season terribly perform significantly better than at their season-starting levels from the year before.

Teams that play the whole season terribly perform significantly better than at their season levels from the year before.

Not sure what that proves though.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You do realize who the Jets QBs were at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, right?

The Jets were 8-5 with Pennington starting in 2002 and 4-6 with him starting in 2003. No matter how you slice it, that's regression.

I watched every game both years. The Jets strong finish in 2002 didn't cause the Jets to perform poorly in 2003.

 

[SSOG]

You might want to revise that assessment. The Bills were horrible long before Spikes went down last season.

Takeo Spikes played two complete games last year.

My bad, I didn't realize he went down so early. Regardless, I still don't buy that he was the sole reason for Buffalo's decline. He might have excacerbated the fall, but no one player can take a team from "The hottest team in the entire league" to "one of the worst teams in the entire league" on his own. Even losing DAN MARINO didn't hurt the 1993 Dolphins anywhere nearly as badly... and I would argue that Marino was more important to the Dolphins than Spikes was to the Bills.

 

[5Rings]

Redskins.

I don't see them winning more than 5-6 games this year.

The main reason is that (IMO) there is no way Brunnel plays as well as he did last year, it was a fluke. There were a few guys along with Brunnell (Moss to name one) who had career years that I don't see them duplicating.

Plus that division is mighty tough.

Honorary mention to Jacksonville.

 

[SSOG]

Of course, I don't think it's surprising if it's true that teams that finish the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-ending levels from the year before. Here are some other things:

Teams that start the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-starting levels from the year before.

Teams that play the whole season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season levels from the year before.

Teams that finish the season terribly perform significantly better than at their season-ending levels from the year before.

Teams that start the season terribly perform significantly better than at their season-starting levels from the year before.

Teams that play the whole season terribly perform significantly better than at their season levels from the year before.

Not sure what that proves though.

I agree with all of the above statements. The point is that a team is never as good as it looks when it's playing its best, and it's never as bad as it looks when it's playing its worst. As a result, a team that goes 0-8 and then 8-0 isn't really likely to have a better season than a team that goes 8-0 and then 0-8. This is why I have such a problem with people extrapolating from Miami's 6-0 run to end the season and saying that Miami will be very good this year. Miami may have ended the season 6-0, but they also started the season 3-7, and you can't just discount that. The true Miami Dolphins last year were somewhere between the team that started 3-7 and the team that ended 6-0.

You do realize who the Jets QBs were at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, right?

The Jets were 8-5 with Pennington starting in 2002 and 4-6 with him starting in 2003. No matter how you slice it, that's regression.

I watched every game both years. The Jets strong finish in 2002 didn't cause the Jets to perform poorly in 2003.

I never said that a strong finish CAUSES a poor performance the next season. I just said that a strong finish masks a whole bunch of problems. People see a strong finish and automatically anticipate a strong season the next year, when that's not necessarily realistic.A similar example is the 2003 Chiefs, who opened the season 9-0 and had some pundits predicting that they'd go undefeated, then closed the season 4-3 and had people wondering why they were so high in the first place on a team that had such a glaringly awful run defense. A hot streak masks a team's problems and leads people to believe that that team is significantly better than it really is.

Another example is the 2003 Minnesota Vikings, who opened the season 6-0 and then missed the playoffs entirely. I'm not arguing that the 6-0 start was the REASON they performed poorly the rest of the way, I'm just arguing that they were never as good as their 6-0 start led people to believe... just like Miami wasn't as good as their 6-0 finish last year is leading people to believe.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You might want to revise that assessment. The Bills were horrible long before Spikes went down last season.

Takeo Spikes played two complete games last year.

My bad, I didn't realize he went down so early. Regardless, I still don't buy that he was the sole reason for Buffalo's decline. He might have excacerbated the fall, but no one player can take a team from "The hottest team in the entire league" to "one of the worst teams in the entire league" on his own. Even losing DAN MARINO didn't hurt the 1993 Dolphins anywhere nearly as badly... and I would argue that Marino was more important to the Dolphins than Spikes was to the Bills.

I never said he was the sole reason; just that he was more responsible than Bledsoe.Here's something people forget about Buffalo: they weren't that good in 2004. Totally a product of the schedule.

They beat the 8-8 Rams at home; the Rams were 2-6 on the road that year

They beat the 8-8 Seahawks in Seattle; Seattle was 1-3 against the AFC East

They beat the 4-12 Dolphins

They beat the 4-12 Browns at home

They beat the 8-8 Bengals without Carson Palmer

They beat the 2-14 49ers

They lost at home against the second and third stringers of the Steelers, who were playing for nothing.

The Bills team was good in 2004, but people got caught up in the winning streak and thought they were better than they were.

 

[SSOG]

I never said he was the sole reason; just that he was more responsible than Bledsoe.

Here's something people forget about Buffalo: they weren't that good in 2004. Totally a product of the schedule.

They beat the 8-8 Rams at home; the Rams were 2-6 on the road that year

They beat the 8-8 Seahawks in Seattle; Seattle was 1-3 against the AFC East

They beat the 4-12 Dolphins

They beat the 4-12 Browns at home

They beat the 8-8 Bengals without Carson Palmer

They beat the 2-14 49ers

They lost at home against the second and third stringers of the Steelers, who were playing for nothing.

The Bills team was good in 2004, but people got caught up in the winning streak and thought they were better than they were.

That's exactly my point, expressed far better than I could have regarding the 2004 Bills. They weren't as good as they looked on the hot streak.People expect teams that finish on a tear to carry that level of play into the next season, when in reality, that level of play was partly a fluke or a random occurance in the first place.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of course, I don't think it's surprising if it's true that teams that finish the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-ending levels from the year before. Here are some other things:

Teams that start the season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season-starting levels from the year before.

Teams that play the whole season on a tear perform significantly worse than at their season levels from the year before.

Teams that finish the season terribly perform significantly better than at their season-ending levels from the year before.

Teams that start the season terribly perform significantly better than at their season-starting levels from the year before.

Teams that play the whole season terribly perform significantly better than at their season levels from the year before.

Not sure what that proves though.

I agree with all of the above statements. The point is that a team is never as good as it looks when it's playing its best, and it's never as bad as it looks when it's playing its worst. As a result, a team that goes 0-8 and then 8-0 isn't really likely to have a better season than a team that goes 8-0 and then 0-8. This is why I have such a problem with people extrapolating from Miami's 6-0 run to end the season and saying that Miami will be very good this year. Miami may have ended the season 6-0, but they also started the season 3-7, and you can't just discount that. The true Miami Dolphins last year were somewhere between the team that started 3-7 and the team that ended 6-0.

Then we're on the same page then. I don't really buy into the Miami hype at all. They have a pretty easy schedule, which will help, but I think that defense might get old, fast. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them take a step back. I don't know if there's such a thing as the true Miami Dolphisn team last year, but that's a whole 'nother story. If people think the Dolphins are going to be excellent because they ended the season 6-0, then you're right to say they're overrated.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I never said he was the sole reason; just that he was more responsible than Bledsoe.

Here's something people forget about Buffalo: they weren't that good in 2004. Totally a product of the schedule.

They beat the 8-8 Rams at home; the Rams were 2-6 on the road that year

They beat the 8-8 Seahawks in Seattle; Seattle was 1-3 against the AFC East

They beat the 4-12 Dolphins

They beat the 4-12 Browns at home

They beat the 8-8 Bengals without Carson Palmer

They beat the 2-14 49ers

They lost at home against the second and third stringers of the Steelers, who were playing for nothing.

The Bills team was good in 2004, but people got caught up in the winning streak and thought they were better than they were.

That's exactly my point, expressed far better than I could have regarding the 2004 Bills. They weren't as good as they looked on the hot streak.People expect teams that finish on a tear to carry that level of play into the next season, when in reality, that level of play was partly a fluke or a random occurance in the first place.

It's ok SSOG, I follow the AFC East a lot closer than most people do. You're the same with the AFC West. We'll help each other out.

 

[jurb26]

(Moss to name one) who had career years that I don't see them duplicating.

Are people seriously still believing this? Moss has had 2 healthy years of his 4 in the NFL. Both were for over 1100 yds and near 10 TDs. They guy is simply good.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'll start off and say the Dolphins by a lot.

Dolphins homer here.....and I totally agree with you. I can't believe how much hype my guys are getting this year. I'm just enjoying it while it lasts

 

[SSOG]

It's ok SSOG, I follow the AFC East a lot closer than most people do. You're the same with the AFC West. We'll help each other out.

Haha, sounds like a plan.You have to love the fact that we just argued for 15 posts before we finally realized that we were both arguing the same side. I'd hate to see what would happen if one day we actually genuinely disagreed. It's hard to say for sure, but my money is on total FBG Armageddon.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Redskins.

I don't see them winning more than 5-6 games this year.

The main reason is that (IMO) there is no way Brunnel plays as well as he did last year, it was a fluke. There were a few guys along with Brunnell (Moss to name one) who had career years that I don't see them duplicating.

Plus that division is mighty tough.

Honorary mention to Jacksonville.

Mark Brunell's numbers for his career(yards, TDs, QB rating)94: 95, 0, 53.8(spot duty)

95: 2168, 15, 82.6(2 games)

96: 4367, 19, 84.0(16 games)

97: 3281, 18, 91.2(14 games)

98: 2601, 20, 89.9(13 games)

99: 2060, 14, 82.0(15 games)

00: 3640, 20, 84.0(16 games)

01 3309, 19, 84.1(15 games)

02: 2788, 17, 85.7(15 games)

03: 484, 2, 63.9(3 games)

04: 1194, 7, 85.9(9 games)

05: 3050, 23, 85.9(16 games)

If you want to tell me that Brunell is injury prone, I'll buy that. But its ridiculous to think that last year was a fluke for him. He has been an excellent QB for a long, long time. The only stat that he set a career high in last year was TDs, but that wouldn't even have been true if he had stayed healthy in 1998. When healthy, Brunell has proven to be a model of consistency and a very good QB.

You may say that other guys had career years last year, but maybe that was because they finally played with a QB like Brunell. And as long as Brunell is healthy that should continue then, no? FWIW, your other example was Moss. Moss last year had 202 fantasy points last year in basic scoring. In 2003 he had 170 fantasy points. Surely it was a career year- I'm not debating that. But its not like it was that much better than 2003, and I think it was more of a product of him being the only WR target worth anything on the team. I do expect his numbers to decline, but only because the WR#2 and WR#3 will increase drastically.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Two things first:

1. As if you can't already tell, I'm a Skin homer. So take everything I write about them FWIW.

2. This is my first real football debate of the offseason....getting me excited already!

One big, big reason that I don't see the Skins falling off- Teams that disappoint from one season to the next often do so due to bad coaching/leadership. After bringing in Saunders, this team now has one of the best coaching staffs in the history of the NFL. They'll be prepared to play- that much I can guarantee.

 

[Texasmouth]

People who are saying Drew Bledsoe was awful last year are either Cowboys haters or don't actually know what they are talking about.

Bledsoe was 8th in almost every QB category in the entire NFL.

The Cowboys lost 5 games by 7 points or less, 3 by 3 or less. Bledsoe was not the problem. Bledsoe put them in the position to win on more than one occasion only to have the craptastic field goal kicker lose the game for them. Had they just won the 3 games they lost because of the kicker, they would have been 12-4 and the last game of the season would have been a lot different if the Cowboys were in playoff contention so it could be said that they would have possibly ended the season 13-3, including a win against the NFC Super Bowl rep Seattle Seahawks IN SEATTLE. Dallas could have won this in regulation but the offensive powerhouse that was Jose Cortez just couldn't get it done.

Bledsoe did a lot to keep this team alive despite playing behind a horribel offensive line that let him get sacked almost as much as David Carr.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Mark Brunell's numbers for his career(yards, TDs, QB rating)

94: 95, 0, 53.8(spot duty)

95: 2168, 15, 82.6(2 games)

96: 4367, 19, 84.0(16 games)

97: 3281, 18, 91.2(14 games)

98: 2601, 20, 89.9(13 games)

99: 2060, 14, 82.0(15 games)

00: 3640, 20, 84.0(16 games)

01 3309, 19, 84.1(15 games)

02: 2788, 17, 85.7(15 games)

03: 484, 2, 63.9(3 games)

04: 1194, 7, 85.9(9 games)

05: 3050, 23, 85.9(16 games)

You might want to run those numbers again. In 2004, he had a 63.9 QB Rating. In 2003, it was 89.7 in three games. But his awful, awful performance in 2004 will stick in the heads of people for awhile. He looked like he was just washed up. Combine that with his 7 straight sub 200-yard passing games at the end of 2005 and the miserable game against the Bucs in the playoffs, and I understand why some people won't be high on him

 

[fatness]

Who is the most overrated team this year?

Dallas Cowboys. They ended last season losing 4 of 6 with a defense that looked considerably worse than the year before. Their offensive line was bad. Their significant upgrade this year is Terrell Owens, who plays neither defense nor offensive line. He play receiver, on a team that wants to run a lot, which won't address their 2 main problems. Add to that Bill Parcels beginning to get that lost, Steve-Spurrier-like look at the end of games and you may also be seeing a fine head coach fading out. How they are talked about as Super Bowl contenders is beyond me. They'll finish 3rd or 4th in the NFC East, behind Washington and New York, and possibly behind Philadelphia.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

I think that the Chiefs are coming in the most over-rated. Big losses up front on the offense, and their defense is still as porous as ever against the pass. I think they'll have a rough season.

 

[Texasmouth]

Who is the most overrated team this year?

Dallas Cowboys. They ended last season losing 4 of 6 with a defense that looked considerably worse than the year before. Their offensive line was bad. Their significant upgrade this year is Terrell Owens, who plays neither defense nor offensive line. He play receiver, on a team that wants to run a lot, which won't address their 2 main problems. Add to that Bill Parcels beginning to get that lost, Steve-Spurrier-like look at the end of games and you may also be seeing a fine head coach fading out.

How they are talked about as Super Bowl contenders is beyond me. They'll finish 3rd or 4th in the NFC East, behind Washington and New York, and possibly behind Philadelphia.

This is a joke. The team lost 5 games by 7 or less and only had one blow out, in Washington. The kicker cost the Cowboys two games for sure. That has definately been addressed, for the first time in a decade.The offensive line lost its best player last season and he is back this year and healthy. The entire line has been upgraded over the past two seasons. An aging Larry Allen has been replaced.

Their team has been upgraded everywhere, linebacker, safety depth, wide receiver, offensive line, and the young d-line will be coming into their second season in the 3-4 and will only get better. Not to mention the addition of a solid rookie linebacker.

This team won 9 games last year with all the problems you listed, all of which have been addressed. So I am sure there is no way they can win two more games this season.....

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFC East will be interesting this year. We've seen the Redskins and Cowboys mentioned in this thread, and I'll name a third. I think the Giants are the most overrated team this year.

This is mostly because I don't think they were that good last year. The Giants beat:

Arizona

New Orleans

St. Louis

Denver

Washington

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Dallas

Philadelphia

Kansas City

Oakland

The Giants lost to:

San Diego

Dallas

Minnesota

Seattle

Washington

Carolina

Record against playoff teams: 2-3

Record against non-playoff teams: 9-3

The Giants faced a pretty easy schedule last year. The Giants face the second hardest schedule this year, but I think that's entirely irrelevant. Give New York credit, because every team they lost to last year had a winning record. But my bigger problem is Eli Manning.

Manning was basically an average QB last year, but his numbers looked better than they were. Sure he was top 5 in passing yards and passing TDs. But Manning was third in the NFL in pass attempts. If you rank higher in pass attempts than TDs or yards, that's not impressive. He also ranked second in interceptions.

Manning completed just 53% of his passes. He ranked 23rd out of 30 QBs in quarterback rating. In adjusted yards per attempt, another strong statistic to evaluate QB play, Manning ranked 20th out of 30 QBs. The formula is [ (yards - INT*45 + TD*10) / attempts ].

Any way you slice it, Manning was a below average QB on a per attempt basis in 2005. It gets worse when you factor in his opponents. In terms of average FP/G allowed, the average NFL team allowed 15.5 FPs to QBs; Manning's opponents allowed 16.0 FP/G. Manning faced an easier schedule than most, and still put up underwhelming numbers.

Most people think Manning was very good last year, and only expect him to get better. I think Manning was average at best last year, and who knows what will happen this year.

As for the rest of the team...just a guess, but I doubt Tiki Barber has the second greatest yardage season in the history of football this year. Strahan and Umenyiora seem unlikely to combine for 26 sacks again this year. The additions of Demps, Madison and Arrington should help the defense, but I'm not sure the Giants will be more than above average on offense or defense. That team is held together by Strahan and Barber, who both have serious age question marks. And Manning hasn't shown me nearly enough yet to think that he can make an average team into a good team.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

The Colts. (some predicting they make the Superbowl ...ignoring they've lost their Edge)

Edge - getting him a work load is when they've won. Year Edge got Hurt they missed the playoffs (andweren't even close..they've made it every other year Edge played..even when he was still recovering while playing) ..only Playoff game Edge got his Work load was the Colts best Playoff win in Arrowhead. Losses in playoffs correspond to when Peyton has tried to grab the glory and not rode the Edge. Last season they were rolling along riding Edge to undefeated season until they got away from it in last month and Peyton failed to get Edge even 15 carries (despite them resting him for weeks before hand) in a second straight playoff defeat. Do a check on Colts record without Edge = Losing %. With rehabbing Edge = Wildcard type %. With Healthy Edge like over 75%. If Addai isn't the real deal I don't expect the Colts to be much better than 10-6...and worse if Addai busts and they have to count on Rhodes. And I knowthe Colts have better Defense..but part of that is ball control also and allowing those speed guys to catch their breaths.

A reason Aikman has Rings is partially because he knew to ride Emmitt even when it was on National TV. And that while Jerry Jones tried to not pay Emitt an 0-2 start after their 1st Superbowl when Emitt held out convinced him noy paying his workhorse was not a good idea....Colts may figure it out that they made a mistake after a few games this year..but they can't just change their minds like the Cowboys were able to and save their Superbowl run ERA. In last 7 playoff games Peyton only got Edge 20+ carries in the Win at Arrowhead...that's just wrong.

 

[Red Herring]

I think that the Chiefs are coming in the most over-rated. Big losses up front on the offense, and their defense is still as porous as ever against the pass. I think they'll have a rough season.

Who was a big loss up front on offense? You may be right about their defense, but I can't think of one player that left on offense that will break their season...

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Colts. (some predicting they make the Superbowl ...ignoring they've lost their Edge)

Edge - getting him a work load is when they've won. Year Edge got Hurt they missed the playoffs (andweren't even close..they've made it every other year Edge played..even when he was still recovering while playing) ..only Playoff game Edge got his Work load was the Colts best Playoff win in Arrowhead. Losses in playoffs correspond to when Peyton has tried to grab the glory and not rode the Edge. Last season they were rolling along riding Edge to undefeated season until they got away from it in last month and Peyton failed to get Edge even 15 carries (despite them resting him for weeks before hand) in a second straight playoff defeat. Do a check on Colts record without Edge = Losing %. With rehabbing Edge = Wildcard type %. With Healthy Edge like over 75%. If Addai isn't the real deal I don't expect the Colts to be much better than 10-6...and worse if Addai busts and they have to count on Rhodes. And I knowthe Colts have better Defense..but part of that is ball control also and allowing those speed guys to catch their breaths.

A reason Aikman has Rings is partially because he knew to ride Emmitt even when it was on National TV. And that while Jerry Jones tried to not pay Emitt an 0-2 start after their 1st Superbowl when Emitt held out convinced him noy paying his workhorse was not a good idea....Colts may figure it out that they made a mistake after a few games this year..but they can't just change their minds like the Cowboys were able to and save their Superbowl run ERA. In last 7 playoff games Peyton only got Edge 20+ carries in the Win at Arrowhead...that's just wrong.

Three of those games were decided by 97 points. How much of an impact do you think Edge would have made with 16 more carries in those three games?

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Throwing out the 41-0 game. I think Peyton giving Edge carries early in games may have changed a number of playoff games. By keeping it closer and letting Peyton work his way into games while Defensive coordinators had to pay more attention to the Run...a few less Ints wouldn't have hurt in a couple of those. And Edge isn't just a 20 carry RB..he regularly handles 25+ carries in regular season. In colts 13-0 start last year he averaged over 25 carries. Only once has Peyton got him 25 in a playoff game. In fact in first 13 games last year he never had less than 21 carries. He never received more than that in any playoff game except their Win at Arrowhead. You should not change your game plan when it works. What works and can be checked is running a Healthy Edge increases the Colts chances to win. Peyton taking too much on his own shoulders has proven to be far less effective whether because Peyton is not clutch..or because defenses aren't going to respect the run if you get awayfrom it or have A Rhodes running it instead of Edge. Edge will bring a Safety up in the Box..Rhodes will not.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Two Colts playoff losses by 3 points...Edge # of Carries 20 and 13. The 20 carry game was a year Edge was NFLs leading rusher...should have had over 20 carries in a 3 point game.

Another Playoff loss by 6 Number of Edge carries 21

Playoff loss by 10 Number of Edge carries 19 Number of Manning Ints 4 yes 4....losing by only 10 when your Pro Bowl QB throws 4 ints...I'd say riding Edge may have helped here.

Year Edge got hurt the Colts were horrid with Rhodes despite Rhodes getting numbers because he rarely drew anything more than 7 in the box. Icould see something similar this year with Rhodes/Addai getting numbers but not the respect Manning needs to open up his passing game. Mannings Average per pass is very different when Edge isn't there.