Worst offense in the NFL this year predictions (1 Viewer)

[Man of Zen]

I don't see the Rams as all that QB-reliant.

They're mostly going to be built to get the ball to fast guys in space, and that's an O that most NFL-level backups can run without turning it into a total disaster. Especially since any QB's blind side is going to be nicely protected in STL this year.

Yeah, they want Bradford's pretty longball to keep things honest and maximize Givens, Quick, and even Cook when they use him down the seam. But there's enough dumpoff talent on that team that they could suffer his loss and not contend for league-worst, at least.

 

[Sabertooth]

The Rams did not win the division last year. WTF?

 

[Man of Zen]

Clearly. Still, I don't think it's hard to figure out what he meant, with the whole best intradivisional record thing.

 

[Biabreakable]

Vikings are a sleeper here.

The whole offense is a guy who's not all that far removed from a catastrophic knee injury, who was then subsequently run into the ground in a way that NEVER bodes well for a back that next year, less so for one on rebuilt knees, and less so still for one on the wrong side of his prime.

Don't get me wrong, Peterson's a beast, but that whole offense is him. And he's got some statistical benchmarks and historical warning signals worth acknowledging. I'm not betting against him, but he's a little wear and tear away from this instantly becoming a contender with the Jets for league-worst talent.

Ponder is borderline as a backup level talent. Jennings is a dinosaur. Patterson has no history whatsoever. Maybe he'll surprise, but I think guessing he's a couple years away makes a lot more sense. Rudolph is a nice red zone dump, but there's no red zone without AP, and Rudy isn't a chain mover in the slightest. And of course they lost their only other viable offensive threat to the Hawks.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them a clubhouse favorite, but if the odds were any good, you could do a lot worse than to bet against the team that's 100% reliant on the high-mileage RB with the history of knee injury.

How do you best like your crow served? Because you have ordered up quite a helping here.

 

[Man of Zen]

Vikings are a sleeper here.

The whole offense is a guy who's not all that far removed from a catastrophic knee injury, who was then subsequently run into the ground in a way that NEVER bodes well for a back that next year, less so for one on rebuilt knees, and less so still for one on the wrong side of his prime.

Don't get me wrong, Peterson's a beast, but that whole offense is him. And he's got some statistical benchmarks and historical warning signals worth acknowledging. I'm not betting against him, but he's a little wear and tear away from this instantly becoming a contender with the Jets for league-worst talent.

Ponder is borderline as a backup level talent. Jennings is a dinosaur. Patterson has no history whatsoever. Maybe he'll surprise, but I think guessing he's a couple years away makes a lot more sense. Rudolph is a nice red zone dump, but there's no red zone without AP, and Rudy isn't a chain mover in the slightest. And of course they lost their only other viable offensive threat to the Hawks.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them a clubhouse favorite, but if the odds were any good, you could do a lot worse than to bet against the team that's 100% reliant on the high-mileage RB with the history of knee injury.

How do you best like your crow served? Because you have ordered up quite a helping here.

So are you on record as predicting a Peterson injury?

 

[Donnybrook]

I believe the most under-rated thing about the Vikings is their defense. I believe their pass defense will be better and they can win close games by running Peterson most of time. They probably won't be very good in fantasy but a solid offense in reality.

 

[sho nuff]

I believe the most under-rated thing about the Vikings is their defense. I believe their pass defense will be better and they can win close games by running Peterson most of time. They probably won't be very good in fantasy but a solid offense in reality.

With Peterson they won't be near the bottom...even with Ponder. Patterson and Jennings will still scare enough defenses to open up some things for Peterson.

Agree on their defense...tough tough unit.

 

[Biabreakable]

Vikings are a sleeper here.

The whole offense is a guy who's not all that far removed from a catastrophic knee injury, who was then subsequently run into the ground in a way that NEVER bodes well for a back that next year, less so for one on rebuilt knees, and less so still for one on the wrong side of his prime.

Don't get me wrong, Peterson's a beast, but that whole offense is him. And he's got some statistical benchmarks and historical warning signals worth acknowledging. I'm not betting against him, but he's a little wear and tear away from this instantly becoming a contender with the Jets for league-worst talent.

Ponder is borderline as a backup level talent. Jennings is a dinosaur. Patterson has no history whatsoever. Maybe he'll surprise, but I think guessing he's a couple years away makes a lot more sense. Rudolph is a nice red zone dump, but there's no red zone without AP, and Rudy isn't a chain mover in the slightest. And of course they lost their only other viable offensive threat to the Hawks.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them a clubhouse favorite, but if the odds were any good, you could do a lot worse than to bet against the team that's 100% reliant on the high-mileage RB with the history of knee injury.

How do you best like your crow served? Because you have ordered up quite a helping here.

So are you on record as predicting a Peterson injury?

No sounds like you are. I wasn't the person saying that the Vikings are going to be the worst offense in the NFC. That was you.

Hard to serve crow to someone who does not even follow what they said a few minutes ago.

In case your wondering what I think of Adrian Peterson see here- http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682773

If the colloquialism "eating crow" is not familiar to you here is a picture- http://corporatecognewdaddyblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2hr1g5c.jpg?w=497

 

[seahawk 17]

Clearly. Still, I don't think it's hard to figure out what he meant, with the whole best intradivisional record thing.

Chacha.com

In 2008, the Detroit Lions did not win a single game, ending the season 0-16, making them the only team to complete a 16-game regular season winless.

Previously, the most losses in a winless season was in 1976 by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers who went 0-14. The Dallas Cowboys went 0-11-1 in 1960. It was the first year in the league for both teams.

The 1982 Baltimore Colts were the last winless team before the Lions, going 0-8-1 in the strike-shortened season.

Rams won 4 games in the division, doesn't mean that they have a good offense.

 

[Man of Zen]

Vikings are a sleeper here.

The whole offense is a guy who's not all that far removed from a catastrophic knee injury, who was then subsequently run into the ground in a way that NEVER bodes well for a back that next year, less so for one on rebuilt knees, and less so still for one on the wrong side of his prime.

Don't get me wrong, Peterson's a beast, but that whole offense is him. And he's got some statistical benchmarks and historical warning signals worth acknowledging. I'm not betting against him, but he's a little wear and tear away from this instantly becoming a contender with the Jets for league-worst talent.

Ponder is borderline as a backup level talent. Jennings is a dinosaur. Patterson has no history whatsoever. Maybe he'll surprise, but I think guessing he's a couple years away makes a lot more sense. Rudolph is a nice red zone dump, but there's no red zone without AP, and Rudy isn't a chain mover in the slightest. And of course they lost their only other viable offensive threat to the Hawks.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them a clubhouse favorite, but if the odds were any good, you could do a lot worse than to bet against the team that's 100% reliant on the high-mileage RB with the history of knee injury.

How do you best like your crow served? Because you have ordered up quite a helping here.

So are you on record as predicting a Peterson injury?

No sounds like you are. I wasn't the person saying that the Vikings are going to be the worst offense in the NFC. That was you.

Hard to serve crow to someone who does not even follow what they said a few minutes ago.

In case your wondering what I think of Adrian Peterson see here- http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682773

If the colloquialism "eating crow" is not familiar to you here is a picture- http://corporatecognewdaddyblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2hr1g5c.jpg?w=497

Did you really go to all the trouble of finding links and working up all that snark when the problem is that you can't read, not that I can't remember?

 

[Man of Zen]

Clearly. Still, I don't think it's hard to figure out what he meant, with the whole best intradivisional record thing.

Chacha.com

In 2008, the Detroit Lions did not win a single game, ending the season 0-16, making them the only team to complete a 16-game regular season winless.

Previously, the most losses in a winless season was in 1976 by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers who went 0-14. The Dallas Cowboys went 0-11-1 in 1960. It was the first year in the league for both teams.

The 1982 Baltimore Colts were the last winless team before the Lions, going 0-8-1 in the strike-shortened season.

Rams won 4 games in the division, doesn't mean that they have a good offense.

No, they could certainly win four games and still be a miserable offense. I agree wholeheartedly that there is no necessary connection, there.

The fact that I think their offense is more than good enough to stay out of the basement with their mediocre starting QB on the shelf has nothing to do with that. I think they have middle of the road type talent at lots of positions, and of course freaky good at a position or two.

That's not going to win them any titles on its own, but it's not going to contend with the Jets or the Vikes if they happen to lose Peterson, either.

 

[Man of Zen]

And so again:

The Vikes are a mediocre offense with Peterson. Elite at the run, miserable at the pass, and sort of middling all together.

Peterson has a medical, usage, and age profile that suggests he's higher risk than most backs. Without him, the running game becomes miserable as well.

Thus, if Peterson falls, the offense becomes truly miserable across the board. If one wanted to make a wager on most miserable offense, then, one could probably do worse than to pick the Vikings. 1) because they're actually not all that bad as presently constructed, 2) because they are one high-risk piece away from being truly the worst in football, and 3) because you'd probably get pretty good odds.

People say lots of teams are one injury away. I disagree. Lots of teams are one injury away from taking a monumental fall, but not being truly the bottom. And of those teams, for very few is that player at this highest-risk position.

 

[Biabreakable]

Vikings are a sleeper here.

The whole offense is a guy who's not all that far removed from a catastrophic knee injury, who was then subsequently run into the ground in a way that NEVER bodes well for a back that next year, less so for one on rebuilt knees, and less so still for one on the wrong side of his prime.

Don't get me wrong, Peterson's a beast, but that whole offense is him. And he's got some statistical benchmarks and historical warning signals worth acknowledging. I'm not betting against him, but he's a little wear and tear away from this instantly becoming a contender with the Jets for league-worst talent.

Ponder is borderline as a backup level talent. Jennings is a dinosaur. Patterson has no history whatsoever. Maybe he'll surprise, but I think guessing he's a couple years away makes a lot more sense. Rudolph is a nice red zone dump, but there's no red zone without AP, and Rudy isn't a chain mover in the slightest. And of course they lost their only other viable offensive threat to the Hawks.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them a clubhouse favorite, but if the odds were any good, you could do a lot worse than to bet against the team that's 100% reliant on the high-mileage RB with the history of knee injury.

How do you best like your crow served? Because you have ordered up quite a helping here.

So are you on record as predicting a Peterson injury?

No sounds like you are. I wasn't the person saying that the Vikings are going to be the worst offense in the NFC. That was you.

Hard to serve crow to someone who does not even follow what they said a few minutes ago.

In case your wondering what I think of Adrian Peterson see here- http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682773

If the colloquialism "eating crow" is not familiar to you here is a picture- http://corporatecognewdaddyblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2hr1g5c.jpg?w=497

Did you really go to all the trouble of finding links and working up all that snark when the problem is that you can't read, not that I can't remember?

Your statement is fully quoted here guy. Who cannot read?

It wasn't any trouble for me at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm surprised Cleveland is having the problems they are still.

Oakland is better than thought.

 

[jojoh07]

i think jax has this title wrapped up

 

[JaxBill]

i think jax has this title wrapped up

Well after two more weeks they get Blackmon back and who knows when Marcedes will be back. With those guys in the lineup, and if MJD isn't hurt too badly, maybe just maybe they'll improve to really, really bad.

 

[The Hank]

i think jax has this title wrapped up

This is a no contest

 

[Rick James]

I don't know guys, Baltimore looks pitiful.

 

[Franknbeans]

Cleveland certainly has to be mentioned. 16 points in 2 games.