Who's your Team To Tank? (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

My vote on the shocking tank is San Diego. They won't go 4-12, but I'm willing to predict 9-7. 14-2 vs. 9-7 is about the difference between Schottenheimer and Turner as coaches.

They won't win 14, but discounting Turner offhand is not right either. Even if they go 10-6, Turner at least gives them a better chance than Schottenheimer in the playoffs. And before you ask "Why?" I'll just tell you it's "Just because."

Schottenheimer has 4 more playoff wins than Turner.

In how many tries?

Turner has 1 win in 9 years as a head coach. Schottenheimer has 5 wins in 21 years. The idea that Schottenheimer can't coach in the playoffs is ridiculous. It's as silly as the Madden Curse.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

My vote on the shocking tank is San Diego. They won't go 4-12, but I'm willing to predict 9-7. 14-2 vs. 9-7 is about the difference between Schottenheimer and Turner as coaches.

They won't win 14, but discounting Turner offhand is not right either. Even if they go 10-6, Turner at least gives them a better chance than Schottenheimer in the playoffs. And before you ask "Why?" I'll just tell you it's "Just because."

Schottenheimer has 4 more playoff wins than Turner.

In how many tries?

Turner has 1 win in 9 years as a head coach. Schottenheimer has 5 wins in 21 years. The idea that Schottenheimer can't coach in the playoffs is ridiculous. It's as silly as the Madden Curse.

I was just kidding around anyway.I think a monkey could win 10 games with the talent on the Chargers roster.

 

[redman]

My vote on the shocking tank is San Diego. They won't go 4-12, but I'm willing to predict 9-7. 14-2 vs. 9-7 is about the difference between Schottenheimer and Turner as coaches.

They won't win 14, but discounting Turner offhand is not right either. Even if they go 10-6, Turner at least gives them a better chance than Schottenheimer in the playoffs. And before you ask "Why?" I'll just tell you it's "Just because."

Schottenheimer has 4 more playoff wins than Turner.

In how many tries?

Turner has 1 win in 9 years as a head coach. Schottenheimer has 5 wins in 21 years. The idea that Schottenheimer can't coach in the playoffs is ridiculous. It's as silly as the Madden Curse.

Turner is 1-1 in the playoffs as a head coach - the Redskins beat the Lions on the road in 1999, before losing on that infamous botched FG snap at TB. Marty is 5-13, including 0-5 since his last win in 1993. During that stretch he went one and done twice with a 13-3 team, and once with a 14-2 team; in each instance his team had secured home field advantage throughout the playoffs. He has only won two playoff games in the same post-season once. Bottom line: the jury's still out on Norv in the playoffs [insert joke here], but it is absolutely a fair statement to say that Marty stinks it up in the playoffs.

 

[CalBear]

Bottom line: the jury's still out on Norv in the playoffs [insert joke here], but it is absolutely a fair statement to say that Marty stinks it up in the playoffs.

No, it's a fair statement to say that Marty's teams in the past have underperformed in the playoffs (although really it's only two or three of his teams; most of them were overmatched and lost to Super Bowl teams). Bill Cowher went 13 years and only won 2 playoff games in a season once. Tony Dungy went 10 years. There's little or no predictive value to a coach's past playoff record in predicting how he'll do in the playoffs in the future (someone did a study on this last year).

 

[ICON211]

Denver and the Giants will not win more than 6 games.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't think they'll tank but I don't think the Ravens will go 13-3 this season. 10-6 probably.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't think they'll tank but I don't think the Ravens will go 13-3 this season. 10-6 probably.

With a grudging nod to a Stillers guy, I think this is correct. A whole lot of things went right for them last year that will be hard to duplicate. Still, they're fundamentally sound and will physically dominate the lesser teams on their schedule.Edit to add that the Jets are my choice. Even more lucky bounces went their way last year.

 

[cacksman]

I think Seattle will be in last place at 6-10.I think KC, Miami and MN will all be 4-12 or worse.

you think that Arizona and San Francisco are locks to finish better than 6-10?

I think they are locks to compete for the Division title with the Rams. I would give the Edge to the 9rs and Cards. I dont think the Rams did enough in the offseason to improve. Either way I have Seattle finishing last as well.

I like how everyone seems to be counting out Seattle this year. May I remind some fools in here that Seattle was one FG away from playing in the NFC Championship game last year. This was with injuries to their top 2 offensive skill players during the season and most of their team not playing 100%. They also had to sign a couple CBs off the street to play in the playoffs because of injuries to their DBs. Everyone is healthy this year, along with a few key additions like Kerney, and the two safeties which guarantee to make huge improvements to last years safety play, which Hamlin and Boulware gave up big play upon big play every game. Not to mention the fact that Branch and Burleson have another year in Holmy's system. Seattle will win the division and compete for homefield throughout. People that say Seattle will in the botton half of the division are either misinformed, or are complete idiots.

 

[cacksman]

This pretty much sums up my feelings about the Hawks this year. From Bill Simmons

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl

2. Seattle

I wrote it last week, I'll write it again: Everyone is sleeping on these guys. They finished 9-7 during a season when nearly everything went wrong; now they're healthy and happy; they dumped their clubhouse cancer guys; they added a pass rusher (Patrick Kerney) and an overqualified defensive assistant (Jim Mora Jr., who nearly made the Super Bowl 30 months ago); they're playing in one of the easiest divisions (the NFC West); and they'll probably be favored in every 2007 game except Pittsburgh in Week 5 and Philly in Week 12. And it's not like they haven't done it before. Throw in their homefield advantage and skill position guys and they seem like the safest bet in the NFC.

So why can you currently get 25-to-1 Super Bowl odds for them in Vegas? Because it's no fun to pick the Seahawks. They've been there before, they play in a smaller market, they have a bald quarterback, their uniforms are boring, their best player is boring, their coach looks like he should be wearing a sheriff's outfit and buying donuts, and if you say you've met more than three Seahawks fans in your entire life and you're not from Seattle, you're lying. Really, the only thing that stands out about them is their crowd. Switch their roster with Dallas' roster and they'd be 7-to-1 odds right now. Since they're in Seattle, nobody cares yet. But you will. Give it a couple of months.