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

[Chase Stuart]

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.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that when James gets 25 carries the Colts win, and when James doesn't get a lot of carries the Colts lose. I think when the Colts win, James gets a lot of carries -- that's why when the Colts were 13-0, James had 25 carries in each game. And when the Colts lose -- like in the playoffs quite a bit -- James will get less carries. (He'll also get less carries in blowouts -- something the Colts have experienced in the playoffs as well).Through 14 weeks, James had 334 carries, 31 more than anyone else. In the second half of games through 14 weeks, James had 175 carries, 22 more than anyone else.

When the Colts were ahead on the scoreboard through 14 weeks, James had 232 carries, 61 more than anyone else. That's why I think when the Colts win/are winning, James gets a lot of carries. That's why when you see the Colts win games, James has lots of carries.

Note: this phenomenon is not unique to the Colts.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

Do you watch these games?In the Titans game, it's irrelevant that James was the NFL's leading rusher. He rushed 20 times for 56 yards against a weak Tennessee run defense.

Against the Steelers, the Colts were losing early and were playing catchup the rest of the game.

In the Dolphins game, the Colts passed 32 times for 194 yards and James ran 21 times for 107 yards.

I don't even know what we're discussing anymore. Even if you were right and giving James lots more carries would have helped the Colts win more playoff games, why does that make the 2006 Colts team overrated? They seemed to do pretty well with their formula the last few years. Do you expect Indy to miss the playoffs?

 

[Sea Bass]

Pittsburgh.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

What I'm discussing is when Colts have not had Edge they've been well under a .500 team. When they have had him they are well over a 500 team. When he was rehabbing after his injury they were a winning team but not as good as when they have a Healthy Edge.

The playoff tidbit was just showing that in last 7 playoff games he has been under utilized...and he should have been a key part of those games just as he has been when Colts have enjoyed their most and Best Successes.

Here I'll make this simple ...since EDGE joined the Colts

With Edge playing and not rehabbing from knee still 62-20 Winning % 76%

With Edge playing 71-25 Win 74%

Without Edge playing 6-10 Win 37.5%

With Edge playing but not fully recovered from the knee injury .. record 9-5 so 64% with in 2002

Because the games Edge missed are not a terribly large sample I pointed out when he was not 100% (year after surgery), or not utilized at the same level (i.e. 6 of last 7 playoff games) they Colts aren't as good as when he is Fully Healthy and they Ride him.

Every year he has missed games they've had a worse record in games without him than games with him...including 2001 when they went 3-7 with Rhodes. It is pretty obvious they are a much better team with Edge healthy and taking a full load. If Addai is a good RB perhaps they go 10-6 or 11-5...if Addai isn't as Good as Rhodes I think they are a barely above .500 team maybe 9-7. If they trade for someone really good or Addai is really good perhaps they get 13+ wins...but I doubt that will happen. Yet because I haven't watched Addai much I can't say how much less effective he will be than Edge so I'm just predicting Colts will disappoint..up to Addai how badly they disappoint.

I understand teams are scared to give RBs long big $ contracts ...but it doesn't mean in a given season a workhorse stud RB isn't worth it..it means teams are scared how long a work horse back can remain effective. And when you are knocking on the Door with a window of opportunity like the Colts are...Ithink hoping an Addai can come close to a Healthy Edge is very risky and could drop Colts down the Playoff pecking order a long ways.

Edit to clean up some numbers.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

"They seemed to do pretty well with their formula the last few years"

My point was also they don't stick with the formula that has made them so successful in last few regular seasons where Edge is carrying 25 times a game until they decide to rest him before playoffs. Last 2 playoff games he received 14 and 13 carries...Pitt game they fell behind...but Manning didn't need to panic so early. Vs NE Manning was confused and should have run it more...his Defense was actually holding it's own .

Regarding Tennessees Run Defense back in 1999 I remember them being very tough back then. Certainly weren't soft or "weak"...but that was back when Manning actually didn't think he needed to do it all and at least gave Edge 20 carries. My issue was in last 7 Playoff games in only the Big win at Arrowhead did Manning give an all-time workhorse RB 20 carries.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Until they actually do something... Arizona... who seems to be on everyone's "underated" list every year.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

To defend my point about getting away from Edge too soon in Pitt game. at 14-0 Peyton did a 3 and out 3 straight incompletion "drive" Pitt ended up punting next drive and Indy DID go to Edge opening a drive with 3 straight Edge runs. Edge touched it 9 times, Rhodes 1 time TE 3 times and WR once . They scored to make it 14-3 at the half. It stayed 14-3 until Peyton opened a later Drive with 3 straight pass attempts 3rd ending in a sack firing up Pitt and forcing his own punter to punt from the 1 yard line (not easy) and after the Punt balls on Indy 30 and Pitt scores 21-3. Then Edge running is pretty much Done at 21-3. But why not run him still when 14-3? The drive they started with 3 straight runs was very effective.. Instead of another 3 and out Peyton pass fest?

Here's something ...in last two seasons NE has played the team they lost to in playoffs in the regular season too.

Edge average carries in those two regular season games is 29.5 for 133 yards

In two playoff games 13.5 carries for 47.5 yards...So where do those 15 carries go? Basically Manning goes from 27 attempts to 40 attempts as he tries to grab the glory by throwing early and often many times leading to drive stalling sacks or incompletes.

Now let's look at how Peyton started the Pitt game... 11 passes called to 3 runs until the drive before halftime that Edge got called plenty. Then 7 pass plays to 2 Runs to start the second half when score was still 14-3. So in the drives the Colts didn't score from start of the game at 0-0 until it wasn't 14-3 anymore they had one drive they used Edge running and set things up and scored. And rest of drives (none of which scored) had a Pass to Run called rate of 18 to 5. If Philly or Martz called such an unbalanced game they'd get bashed big time.

Remember how they fought NE to a great 24-27 game to open 2004? They came out running it right at the Patriots. Game could have gone either way and would be a playoff classic if it had been a playoff game.. Edge 30 carries for 142 yards had a lot to do with taking load off Peyton and passing game and allowing an efficient 29 attempts 2 TDs for Peyton. Playoffs Manning 42 attempts Edge 14 Indy scores 3 points as it is a playoff yawner at 20-3.

Manning has no business calling 11 of first 14 plays vs Pittsburgh as passes. Pittsburgh was more vulnerable vs the Run and Edge had gone 29 for 124 vs them just a little over a month before.

Yet my point isn't Manning in this thread ...it's about what Indy has done without Edge ....the under utilized and year off surgery games are just a mid point to show that the without Edge % and the With Edge % has a point inbetween where % falls inbetween as well if Edge recovering from his Knee operation or simply being under utilized as Manning tries to do too much. I think Indy is a better team than 2001 so no way they blow like they did with Rhodes last time...but they will disappoint anyone discounting what Edge REALLY brought to that team and never seemed to get enough credit for because most media is too busy trying to credit Peyton for everything to increase the Hyperbole.

 

[Billy1x]

Seahawks

 

[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.

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...

Perhaps loss wasn't the right word. They only lost one player: Tony Richardson. That's a pretty big loss itself.I guess I was thinking about how Will Shields and Willie Roaf are now both going on 36 years old, and may (A) retire, (B) not be 100%, or © be ineffective.

 

[fatness]

Until they actually do something... Arizona... who seems to be on everyone's "underated" list every year.

Good point. They're usually "about to make the playoffs this year" every year, like the Vikings.

 

[MLBrandow]

You know what this thread needs... is for people to make record predictions, and then use that list to make our "overrated" predictions...

It's hard to guage really what teams are so overrated when there doesn't even appear to be a remote consensus on how good certain teams are....

Anyone have any empirical data on team predictions this year? Perhaps we could use SB odds....

I think I remember dallas having like 4th best odds on game... which seems insanely overrated for a team that's going to finish last in their division.

 

[SSOG]

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.

After week 9, Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders and Foxsports wrote the following:

Eli Manning is having one of the strangest quarterback seasons of all time, combining a terrible completion percentage with an uncanny ability to avoid interceptions. Right now, Manning has completed just 52 percent of his passes -- the league average is 60 percent -- but has 14 touchdowns and five interceptions. Here's a list of all the quarterbacks since the 16-game season began in 1978 who fit the following criteria:

* less than a 55 percent completion percentage

* at least twice as many touchdowns as interceptions

* at least 300 pass attempts

Player Year Team COMP ATT COMP% PaYD PaTD INT

Jay Schroeder 1990 RAI 182 334 54.5% 2849 19 9

Trent Green 1998 WAS 278 509 54.6% 3441 23 11

Tony Banks 1999 BAL 169 320 52.8% 2136 17 8

Michael Vick 2002 ATL 231 421 54.9% 2936 16 8

Eli Manning 2005 NYG 266 516 51.6% 3622 28 10

Manning's numbers are pro-rated to 16 games for comparison. Not only are there only four quarterbacks that qualify, but each one of them had a higher completion percentage than Manning has, and a worse touchdown-to-interception ratio.

Frankly, the chances of Manning continuing this for an entire season are remote. He either needs to get more accurate, or he's bound to throw some picks sooner or later.

Of course, after that article was written, Eli threw 10 TDs and 15 INTs the rest of the way.Given that the 14:5 TD:INT ratio was an outlier of historically large proportions, I would expect the real Eli to be a lot closer to the guy who posted the 10:15 TD:INT ratio at the end of last year.

Until they actually do something... Arizona... who seems to be on everyone's "underated" list every year.

I think you can blame Cincinnati for that. Now that Cincinnati has finally become respectable, people are convinced that Arizona can't possibly be THAT BAD forever. Same thing with Detroit.

 

[bj8288]

Pittsburgh.

Really? In the regular season? Or winning the Super Bowl? Two totally different things, but in terms of the regular season, if Roethlesberger is healthy, that team is an absolute machine. Toss it around, get a lead, run out the clock, game over. It's a very easy formula they have. I'd absolutely be willing to put money on them winning 13 rather than 9 or 10. Roethlesberger simply doesn't lose in the regular season, it's the same team, the same type of schedule. If he's healthy they are winning at least 13 games this year. Now playoffs, they are an entirely different animal......lots of luck, matchups, injuries, and officials in the mix there.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

 

[winwithike]

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.

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.....

They lost 5 games by 7 points or less...big deal they also won 6 games by 4 points or less EVERY team wins and loses close games and wins and loses close games because and despite of the kicker. I think they have a shot of winning 2 more as well, but stating close losses as a reason is ridiculous considering they won more close ones than they lost

 

[SSOG]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

Why, what's the line?I honestly think that Art Shell makes the Raiders a lot better, and that Phillip Rivers is going to have a rough time of it in his first couple of games (even if he'll be fine by the end of the year). If I had to set the line, I'd favor San Diego by 1. Give Oakland the traditional 3 points for HFA and I'd set the line at Oakland -2. If the line is much higher than that, then Oakland is definitely overrated.

 

[AmpLee]

Of course, after that article was written, Eli threw 10 TDs and 15 INTs the rest of the way.Given that the 14:5 TD:INT ratio was an outlier of historically large proportions, I would expect the real Eli to be a lot closer to the guy who posted the 10:15 TD:INT ratio at the end of last year.

I'm a Giants homer so I'm probably a little bit partial but I think Eli will resemble the QB a the beginning of the season rather than the poor play at the end.... You gotta realize this was his first full season as starting QB. I think he kinda mentally and physically tired toward the end of the season. I think he'll be able to pace himself better this year. Also the O-Line was pretty banged up towards the end of last year. Plus all the injuries on Defensive didn't help either last year...That being said, I cringed when I saw the Giants schedule for this year...It's definetly gonna be a dog fight in that division....The Giants fan in me says they pull it out, but if I really force myself to be impartial I got a weird feeling Philly takes the division with 9-10 wins.....

 

[Texasmouth]

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.

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.....

They lost 5 games by 7 points or less...big deal they also won 6 games by 4 points or less EVERY team wins and loses close games and wins and loses close games because and despite of the kicker. I think they have a shot of winning 2 more as well, but stating close losses as a reason is ridiculous considering they won more close ones than they lost

OK, good argument. Normally I would agree but when the kicker himself causes more than one loss, it has to be said that bringing in a top ten kicker should help.

 

[SSOG]

Of course, after that article was written, Eli threw 10 TDs and 15 INTs the rest of the way.

Given that the 14:5 TD:INT ratio was an outlier of historically large proportions, I would expect the real Eli to be a lot closer to the guy who posted the 10:15 TD:INT ratio at the end of last year.

I'm a Giants homer so I'm probably a little bit partial but I think Eli will resemble the QB a the beginning of the season rather than the poor play at the end.... You gotta realize this was his first full season as starting QB. I think he kinda mentally and physically tired toward the end of the season. I think he'll be able to pace himself better this year. Also the O-Line was pretty banged up towards the end of last year. Plus all the injuries on Defensive didn't help either last year...That being said, I cringed when I saw the Giants schedule for this year...It's definetly gonna be a dog fight in that division....The Giants fan in me says they pull it out, but if I really force myself to be impartial I got a weird feeling Philly takes the division with 9-10 wins.....

I actually phrased my previous post poorly. I didn't meant to say that Eli Manning would play like the QB at the last half of last season, I meant to say that if he doesn't improve his accuracy any, he will play like the QB at the last half of last season. Obviously, as young as he is, it's still extremely feasible that he could improve. With that said, if he has a 52% completion percentage again, he's going to toss as many INTs as TDs again.

 

[fatness]

Copy/paste of Vegas Super Bowl Odds from SSOG's post in the "most underrated team" thread:

Indianapolis Colts 6-1

New England Patriots 8-1

Pittsburgh Steelers 10-1

Denver Broncos 10-1

Seattle Seahawks 10-1

Dallas Cowboys 12-1

Carolina Panthers 13-1

Washington Redskins 14-1

San Diego Chargers 14-1

New York Giants 16-1

Chicago Bears 16-1

Philadelphia Eagles 18-1

Kansas City Chiefs 20-1

Cincinnati Bengals 20-1

Miami Dolphins 25-1

Jacksonville Jaguars 30-1

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 30-1

Atlanta Falcons 30-1

Minnesota Vikings 30-1

Baltimore Ravens 40-1

Arizona Cardinals 45-1

New Orleans Saints 50-1

St Louis Rams 60-1

Buffalo Bills 100-1

Cleveland Browns 100-1

Detroit Lions 100-1

New York Jets 100-1

Green Bay Packers 100-1

Houston Texans 100-1

Tennessee Titans 100-1

Oakland Raiders 100-1

San Francisco 49ers 150-1

 

[Our Gang]

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.

While the dolphins did win 6 in a row to end the season, did you casually leave out the other 3 wins to make your point stronger. They had quality wins against Carolina and Denver, and also beating New Orleans. So, that being said, a 9-7 team that improved it's o-line, secondary, and QB position, along with another year in the Saban system, should be improved....MY take 11-5 based upon their schedule and improvements.

 

[MLBrandow]

While the dolphins did win 6 in a row to end the season, did you casually leave out the other 3 wins to make your point stronger.  They had quality wins against Carolina and Denver, and also beating New Orleans.  So, that being said, a 9-7 team that improved it's o-line, secondary, and QB position, along with another year in the Saban system, should be improved....MY take 11-5 based upon their schedule and improvements.

They beat Denver about the same way that NO beat Carolina at the beginning of the season. It was absolutely a fluke win.Beating New Orleans is a joke, and I don't remember the Carolina win.

The point was that they were 3-7 until Ricky Williams got his stride, and they won out because of it.

If you are refusing to acknowledge how vital that RW was to the Dolphins' success last year, you are an absolute fool to believe losing him and replacing a marginal quarterback with a slightly more marginal quarterback somehow makes them 2 wins better.

There is no way they are breaking .500 next year, and I'd give pretty solid odds against them breaking six wins.

My end pick I think is the Minnesota Vikings. 30-1 with Tampa Bay and Jacksonville is disgusting (both who will likely win their divisions next season and definitely make the postseason).

 

[Assani Fisher]

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.

I agree that Bledsoe did well last year. The Cowboys have a lot going for them, although they can't be happy with the way they ended last year, most noticably losing 35-7 in a game that that most likely decided their playoff fate.

 

[Assani Fisher]

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

If his 'awful' 04 performance sticks in people's heads, then why wouldn't his very good 05 performance stick in their heads even more since it was more recent? So one bad year overwrites a career of very good-great performances?

 

[Homey]

The Giants will finish last in the NFC East this season. Tiki will not be close to as productive as last year. Eli is still not a franchise QB, Strahan is old and their defense is not improved.

 

[Banger]

The Giants will finish last in the NFC East this season. Tiki will not be close to as productive as last year. Eli is still not a franchise QB, Strahan is old and their defense is not improved.

that's funny.

 

[Homey]

The Giants will finish last in the NFC East this season.  Tiki will not be close to as productive as last year.  Eli is still not a franchise QB, Strahan is old and their defense is not improved.

that's funny.

Sorry, but the Giants were the worst team to make the playoffs last season IMO and are not improved. The Skins, Cowboys, and Eagles will all perform better than last season and the Giants have a tougher schedule. Major regression this season IMO.

 

[Banger]

The Giants will finish last in the NFC East this season.  Tiki will not be close to as productive as last year.  Eli is still not a franchise QB, Strahan is old and their defense is not improved.

that's funny.

Sorry, but the Giants were the worst team to make the playoffs last season IMO and are not improved. The Skins, Cowboys, and Eagles will all perform better than last season and the Giants have a tougher schedule. Major regression this season IMO.

I don't think the Giants are a shoe-in for the playoffs this year but I don't agree with your initial reasons why. To say that adding Sam Madison, Lavar Arrington and Demps added to an already solid defense is not an improvement is wrong IMO. I see no reason why Tiki wouldn't be as productive as he's been. Strahan despite his age finished 3rd last year with 11.5 sacks, 2nd in tackles among lineman and see no reason why he would regress. I do agree that the competition in their division will be much more difficult this year and it may be difficult to make the playoffs but I don't think that makes them overrated. I just think that they will be a good team that might not make the playoffs due to a number of other good teams being in the same division (if that makes any sense)....

 

[Our Gang]

While the dolphins did win 6 in a row to end the season, did you casually leave out the other 3 wins to make your point stronger.  They had quality wins against Carolina and Denver, and also beating New Orleans.  So, that being said, a 9-7 team that improved it's o-line, secondary, and QB position, along with another year in the Saban system, should be improved....MY take 11-5 based upon their schedule and improvements.

They beat Denver about the same way that NO beat Carolina at the beginning of the season. It was absolutely a fluke win.Beating New Orleans is a joke, and I don't remember the Carolina win.

The point was that they were 3-7 until Ricky Williams got his stride, and they won out because of it.

If you are refusing to acknowledge how vital that RW was to the Dolphins' success last year, you are an absolute fool to believe losing him and replacing a marginal quarterback with a slightly more marginal quarterback somehow makes them 2 wins better.

ok, calling a 2x pro-bowler marginal is ludacris. Here is how they get to 11-5. They could end up 12-4 if Indianapolis plays their scrubs in the last game of the season. I am not refuting Ricky made the fins a better team. Just that the gains they made. outweigh the loss of RW.

L-Sep 7 - at Pittsburgh, 8:30 PM

W-Sep 17 - vs. Buffalo, 1:00 PM

W-Sep 24 - vs. Tennessee, 1:00 PM

W-Oct 1 - at Houston, 1:00 PM

L-Oct 8 - at New England, 1:00 PM

W-Oct 15 - at NY Jets, 4:15 PM

W- Oct 22 - vs. Green Bay, 1:00 PM

Oct 31 - Open

L-Nov 5 - at Chicago, 1:00 PM

W-Nov 12 - vs. Kansas City, 1:00 PM

W-Nov 19 - vs. Minnesota, 1:00 PM

W-Nov 23 - at Detroit, 12:30 PM

W-Dec 3 - vs. Jacksonville, 1:00 PM

W-Dec 10 - vs. New England, 1:00 PM

L-Dec 17 - at Buffalo, 1:00 PM

W-Dec 25 - vs. NY Jets, 8:30 PM

L-Dec 31 - at Indianapolis, 1:00 PM

There is no way they are breaking .500 next year, and I'd give pretty solid odds against them breaking six wins.

My end pick I think is the Minnesota Vikings. 30-1 with Tampa Bay and Jacksonville is disgusting (both who will likely win their divisions next season and definitely make the postseason).

 

[Kleck]

Arizona

You mean they get to tackle me in the backfield?

Further, their defense is nothing special and didn't improve. Still cracks me up how they were overjoyed to get two cast-offs from Seattle the previous year (Huff and Okeafor). Oh yeah. Those guys were awesome.

 

[Bcubed2355]

I would say that the Dallast Cryboys would move to top of the class in that category. But then again that is expect because as always they are the media darling of the league for some unknown reason

 

[Homey]

The Giants will finish last in the NFC East this season.  Tiki will not be close to as productive as last year.  Eli is still not a franchise QB, Strahan is old and their defense is not improved.

that's funny.

Sorry, but the Giants were the worst team to make the playoffs last season IMO and are not improved. The Skins, Cowboys, and Eagles will all perform better than last season and the Giants have a tougher schedule. Major regression this season IMO.

I don't think the Giants are a shoe-in for the playoffs this year but I don't agree with your initial reasons why. To say that adding Sam Madison, Lavar Arrington and Demps added to an already solid defense is not an improvement is wrong IMO. I see no reason why Tiki wouldn't be as productive as he's been. Strahan despite his age finished 3rd last year with 11.5 sacks, 2nd in tackles among lineman and see no reason why he would regress. I do agree that the competition in their division will be much more difficult this year and it may be difficult to make the playoffs but I don't think that makes them overrated. I just think that they will be a good team that might not make the playoffs due to a number of other good teams being in the same division (if that makes any sense)....

A safety coming off of an ACL injury doesnt excite me, nor does an aging corner. Lavar has potential to make an impact, but that may be my PSU alum glasses.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

Why, what's the line?I honestly think that Art Shell makes the Raiders a lot better, and that Phillip Rivers is going to have a rough time of it in his first couple of games (even if he'll be fine by the end of the year). If I had to set the line, I'd favor San Diego by 1. Give Oakland the traditional 3 points for HFA and I'd set the line at Oakland -2. If the line is much higher than that, then Oakland is definitely overrated.

Raiders -2??In the last 5 meetings between these two teams the Bolts have won by an average of 16 points (9 pt on the road) and as you might guess SD is 5-0. The Charger defense should be better this season then last, perhaps significantly better with Foley(not injured) and Merriman (full time starter).

Marty posts a whopping 26-6 mark against the Raiders with a 8-3 clip as a Charger.

Sure its Rivers first start, but he isn't a rookie. As for Oaklands QB, ehh Brooks, last time the bolts saw him it was a 43-17 win.

The opening line is SD -3 by the way.

 

[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

If his 'awful' 04 performance sticks in people's heads, then why wouldn't his very good 05 performance stick in their heads even more since it was more recent? So one bad year overwrites a career of very good-great performances?

I don't think his performance in 05 was very good, unless we're comparing it to his 04 performance. At 36, what he did when he was 30 becomes largely irrelevant.

 

[SSOG]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

Why, what's the line?I honestly think that Art Shell makes the Raiders a lot better, and that Phillip Rivers is going to have a rough time of it in his first couple of games (even if he'll be fine by the end of the year). If I had to set the line, I'd favor San Diego by 1. Give Oakland the traditional 3 points for HFA and I'd set the line at Oakland -2. If the line is much higher than that, then Oakland is definitely overrated.

Raiders -2??In the last 5 meetings between these two teams the Bolts have won by an average of 16 points (9 pt on the road) and as you might guess SD is 5-0. The Charger defense should be better this season then last, perhaps significantly better with Foley(not injured) and Merriman (full time starter).

Marty posts a whopping 26-6 mark against the Raiders with a 8-3 clip as a Charger.

Sure its Rivers first start, but he isn't a rookie. As for Oaklands QB, ehh Brooks, last time the bolts saw him it was a 43-17 win.

The opening line is SD -3 by the way.

Even very good QBs struggle in their first games. Carson Palmer did it after sitting a year. Steve McNair did it after sitting several years. Jake Plummer did it after moving from Arizona to Denver. I expect Rivers to struggle, too. Maybe not play horrible, but play poorly.Mentioning statistics from your last 5 meetings isn't just pointless (obviously I'm making the claim that Oakland has improved), it's also misleading (why the last 5 meetings? Why not the last 6 meetings? Oh yeah, that's right, it's because the 6th meeting was an SD loss).

First off, Oakland averaged 4.33 wins over the last 3 seasons. Second off, this isn't a game between Oakland and San Diego... this is a HOME GAME between Oakland and San Diego. The last 3 games these teams played in Oakland ended up Oakland by 3, San Diego by 6, and San Diego by 13. That's a 1-2 record, with SD's average margin of victory just over 5 points, over a span during which San Diego has averaged twice as many wins as Oakland. It's not like San Diego has been dominating Oakland in Oakland.

Is it really so farfetched to believe that, if I expect Oakland to significantly improve and San Diego to significantly decline- at least for the first few games until Rivers gets some experience- that Oakland could actually be favored at home against San Diego? I'm not even saying Oakland is a better team- I'm saying San Diego will be marginally better, even despite SD declining and Oakland improving, but that once you give Oakland the customary 3 points for HFA, they wind up being favored. It's not like it's really that much of a headscratcher here.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

 

[cstu]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

Why, what's the line?I honestly think that Art Shell makes the Raiders a lot better, and that Phillip Rivers is going to have a rough time of it in his first couple of games (even if he'll be fine by the end of the year). If I had to set the line, I'd favor San Diego by 1. Give Oakland the traditional 3 points for HFA and I'd set the line at Oakland -2. If the line is much higher than that, then Oakland is definitely overrated.

Raiders -2??In the last 5 meetings between these two teams the Bolts have won by an average of 16 points (9 pt on the road) and as you might guess SD is 5-0. The Charger defense should be better this season then last, perhaps significantly better with Foley(not injured) and Merriman (full time starter).

Marty posts a whopping 26-6 mark against the Raiders with a 8-3 clip as a Charger.

Sure its Rivers first start, but he isn't a rookie. As for Oaklands QB, ehh Brooks, last time the bolts saw him it was a 43-17 win.

The opening line is SD -3 by the way.

Even very good QBs struggle in their first games. Carson Palmer did it after sitting a year. Steve McNair did it after sitting several years. Jake Plummer did it after moving from Arizona to Denver. I expect Rivers to struggle, too. Maybe not play horrible, but play poorly.Mentioning statistics from your last 5 meetings isn't just pointless (obviously I'm making the claim that Oakland has improved), it's also misleading (why the last 5 meetings? Why not the last 6 meetings? Oh yeah, that's right, it's because the 6th meeting was an SD loss).

First off, Oakland averaged 4.33 wins over the last 3 seasons. Second off, this isn't a game between Oakland and San Diego... this is a HOME GAME between Oakland and San Diego. The last 3 games these teams played in Oakland ended up Oakland by 3, San Diego by 6, and San Diego by 13. That's a 1-2 record, with SD's average margin of victory just over 5 points, over a span during which San Diego has averaged twice as many wins as Oakland. It's not like San Diego has been dominating Oakland in Oakland.

Is it really so farfetched to believe that, if I expect Oakland to significantly improve and San Diego to significantly decline- at least for the first few games until Rivers gets some experience- that Oakland could actually be favored at home against San Diego? I'm not even saying Oakland is a better team- I'm saying San Diego will be marginally better, even despite SD declining and Oakland improving, but that once you give Oakland the customary 3 points for HFA, they wind up being favored. It's not like it's really that much of a headscratcher here.

I guess so.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Based on the opening lines for the week one games, the Raiders are the mosto verrated team.

Why, what's the line?I honestly think that Art Shell makes the Raiders a lot better, and that Phillip Rivers is going to have a rough time of it in his first couple of games (even if he'll be fine by the end of the year). If I had to set the line, I'd favor San Diego by 1. Give Oakland the traditional 3 points for HFA and I'd set the line at Oakland -2. If the line is much higher than that, then Oakland is definitely overrated.

Raiders -2??In the last 5 meetings between these two teams the Bolts have won by an average of 16 points (9 pt on the road) and as you might guess SD is 5-0. The Charger defense should be better this season then last, perhaps significantly better with Foley(not injured) and Merriman (full time starter).

Marty posts a whopping 26-6 mark against the Raiders with a 8-3 clip as a Charger.

Sure its Rivers first start, but he isn't a rookie. As for Oaklands QB, ehh Brooks, last time the bolts saw him it was a 43-17 win.

The opening line is SD -3 by the way.

Even very good QBs struggle in their first games. Carson Palmer did it after sitting a year. Steve McNair did it after sitting several years. Jake Plummer did it after moving from Arizona to Denver. I expect Rivers to struggle, too. Maybe not play horrible, but play poorly.Mentioning statistics from your last 5 meetings isn't just pointless (obviously I'm making the claim that Oakland has improved), it's also misleading (why the last 5 meetings? Why not the last 6 meetings? Oh yeah, that's right, it's because the 6th meeting was an SD loss).

First off, Oakland averaged 4.33 wins over the last 3 seasons. Second off, this isn't a game between Oakland and San Diego... this is a HOME GAME between Oakland and San Diego. The last 3 games these teams played in Oakland ended up Oakland by 3, San Diego by 6, and San Diego by 13. That's a 1-2 record, with SD's average margin of victory just over 5 points, over a span during which San Diego has averaged twice as many wins as Oakland. It's not like San Diego has been dominating Oakland in Oakland.

Is it really so farfetched to believe that, if I expect Oakland to significantly improve and San Diego to significantly decline- at least for the first few games until Rivers gets some experience- that Oakland could actually be favored at home against San Diego? I'm not even saying Oakland is a better team- I'm saying San Diego will be marginally better, even despite SD declining and Oakland improving, but that once you give Oakland the customary 3 points for HFA, they wind up being favored. It's not like it's really that much of a headscratcher here.

I guess so.

Part of what you bolded is still very true. In games where San Diego might actually have to pass and not run LT 50x, what kind of game is Rivers going to give them? Plus what you bolded was a hypothetical anyway.

 

[PMENFAN]

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...

Perhaps loss wasn't the right word. They only lost one player: Tony Richardson. That's a pretty big loss itself.I guess I was thinking about how Will Shields and Willie Roaf are now both going on 36 years old, and may (A) retire, (B) not be 100%, or © be ineffective.

I agreed with the 'Skins, should I see them at 9-7, maybe challenging for a WC spot. The hype is big though for all 4 teams there, and I see all 4 right about there, and the 'Skins as the weakest of the 4. 'Fins. Most of the big hype is from the 'Fins fans. I think they're better. I though they'd be close to 10 wins on the weak schedule, though after seeing the Bills, and Jets, that schedule looks 4 games tougher. They have major line issues. It was the Steelers, but I don't see Pepper w/ a lot of time, not Ronnie w/ a lot of room most weeks. Defensively, they're a middle of the road team. They're in the 2nd year. Next year, Saban will have them at 10-11 wins. This year, they're probably closer to 7-8.

'Boys? Lot's of talent on both sides of the ball. Again, a tough division. Like the AFC East of a few years back, they will beat up on each other, taking upside potential away from each other. Bledsoe will fade down the stretch. He did it in NE. He did it in Buffalo. He did it in Dallas. He'll do it this year in Dallas. But, first he'll have to shine better than he did this week. As a Pats fan, I recognize the deer in headlights look. He has it early this year. When Drew is hopping before he tosses, he's great. He wasn't doing it this week. Sadly, I drafted him for my team. I hope to see it this week. If not, I have to find a way to get Tony Romo, because he'll be on the field if they lose another one. There's too much potential to go 0-3 with the statue.

I quoted the Chiefs, because this is one team I team I see primed for a big fall off. As I was reading this, I was like, nobody missing up front? Then I saw the date, but still. Just their two tackles and their fullback. Not to mention the Offensive Coofdinator. Throw in the head coach that they replaced with the most overhyped lump of crapola in the league, IMHO. They made the Bengals, which is a solid unit, but by no stretch elite, look elite. Why? Because they lost their two tackle, OC. And, Herm Edwards cannot come up with a game plan. He cannot manage a game on game day, and he cannot consistently motivate his team. Like a blind squirrel who can occasionally find a nut, his teams will on occasion come out and execute a fine game plan, and he will not make a bad decision on game day, but that is IMHO, the exception. He alone is a solid 3 games worst than Vermiel. Saunders is another game. The tackles and other losses cost two more. Pickups gain them one. I see them with a net turn around of 5 games. That's around 5 games in the win column this year. That's probably a bit much, because they do get the Raiders 2x, and the Chargers once at home. Still, they probably don't get to 8. Vermiel may have hand picked Herm, but that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

[The Jacket]

Based on week one, the only answer is Carolina. And I should know, I overrated the hell out of them (by the looks of things).

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Anyone who said Arizona or Miami is looking good right about now.

 

[MLBrandow]

This is an interesting bump to pair with the "Who is the most overrated team right now" thread currently floating around in the shark pool.

 

[Sea Bass]

Pittsburgh.

I stand by my selection.