NFL: Whose Fortunes Will Turn?

[QuikSand]

As of now, we have two games on the books for each NFL team. Just enough to think we are starting to "know" these teams, as opposed to their 2004 incernations. Sometimes, deceivingly so.

Thus far, here are the 14 NFL teams who have started out with either 2-0 or 0-2 records:

2-0 STARTS

Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Washington
NY Giants
Tampa Bay


0-2 STARTS

Baltimore
Houston
Oakland
San Diego
Green Bay
Minnesota
Arizona


In theory, at least some of these teams will reverse course -- some of the 2-0 starters will end up with losing records, and some of the 0-2 starters will end up with tinning records. It's not all that easy to do, but it does happen.

So... from these lists, which teams are going to turn their season around, for the better or for the worse? Offer your prediction lists in this thread, before week three get started.

Who has started 0-2 but will win 9 or more games?

Who has started 2-0, but will lose 9 or more games?

[Samdari]

I think San Diego is the surest thing to have a tinning record from 0-2, with noone else on the list even having a shot. Washington WILL have a losing record, with Tampa also likely doing so. I see the Giants as a .500 team, so they could go either way.

[wade moore]

Who has started 0-2 but will win 9 or more games?

My bet would be with the Chargers. They showed last year that they have a very quality offense, that just hasn't gotten off of the ground. Unless Brees just had a COMPLETELY odd one-year quality season, then I expect them to straighten things out.


Who has started 2-0, but will lose 9 or more games?

The Skins. This is 'my team', but I am just shocked to see them 2-0 (even considering the teams we've played). We have a relatively difficult schedule this year, and I just can't see this offense putting up 8 or more wins.

[wade moore]

Dola:

Wrote this before I saw sam's message...

[ISiddiqui]

I think the Giants will fall back down, but I think Tampa's going to have a good year this go around.

As for the 0-2 teams, I think San Diego and Oakland have a good shot at a winning record (one or the other, but not both).

[Raiders Army]

Pittsburgh will fall...

Oakland will rise...

[timbuc2]

if cadillac keep it up (or more accurately the o-line), BUcs will have a winning season. I think the Skins and perhaps the Giants will end up subpar. The Giants were dominant in both their victories, but we will see what happens when they play a true defense.

The Chargers, and i think maybe the vikings could have +.500 seasons. Yes the vikings look terrible, and as much as i hate them, being a bucs fan in minnesota, i cant see culpepper being this bad all season. And they DO have the Packers and Lions in their division. If Culpepper wakes up and that D gels soon they could make 9-7. I could see the Raiders doing good, but i doubt the Cheifs, Raiders, and Chargers all having winning seasons. one of those three will do poorly.

[TazFTW]

With their reaction, Washington has already won their Super Bowl. They will lose 9 or more games.

I would like to say San Diego will win 9 or more but their schedule is brutal. They're @ New England, @ Philadelphia, @ Indianapolis, Pittsburgh at home, and they play the Chiefs twice.

I think Minnesota has the best shot because the division is mediocre but they have looked horrible the first 2 games. I guess I'll go with Minnesota winning 9 or more because someone has to win that division with a winning record. Right?

[WSUCougar]

I think the Skins are destined to tail off, mainly due to their quarterback situation. Although they ended up winning on Monday Night Football, Mark Brunell looked "scary bad" on some plays, and I can't see how he can lead that team to much glory. I've always liked him, but I think he's pretty much done.

I think Oakland, Minnesota, and Arizona are all teams that have the potential to turn it around, IF they get significantly better defensive play AND their offenses get in sync. I know that's asking a lot, but there it is.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

someone has to win that division

Yes

Originally Posted by TazFTW

with a winning record. Right?

Not necesarily

[cthomer5000]

Going to lose 9 games:
Washington
NY Giants
Tampa Bay

Going to win 9 games:

Minnesota
San Diego (maybe, don't feel great about this one)

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Pittsburgh will fall...

Oakland will rise...

...and Raider fans will continue to know nothing about football.

[albionmoonlight]

Fall to Earth--Washington

Rise Above--Oakland

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Going to lose 9 games:
Washington
NY Giants
Tampa Bay

Going to win 9 games:

Minnesota
San Diego (maybe, don't feel great about this one)

Disagree vehemently here Corey.

Washington is going to lose 11-12 games, not 9.

And Minnesota will have trouble winning 6.

[mhass]

Minnesota has a loooong way to go to win nine games. They have been terrilbe on offense and I think Moss had a lot more to do with Culpepper's success than they're letting on. He looks nervous and doesn't have that "back pocket" receiver to fall back on when coverage is tight or he's scrambling.

Oakland won't win nine either. San Diego will. And I have this sneaking suspicion that Big Ben is due for a market correction. I just don't see him continuing to play like Dan Marino forever.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Samdari

And Minnesota will have trouble winning 6.

If we set the over/under at 5.5, I'll take the over and bet you $100.

[rkmsuf]

I think Min is missing their O-coordinator from last year.

[QuikSand]

I, too, have trouble seeing how the Redskins win nine games this year -- they would be the team I'd see as most likely to have this sort of turnaround.

I didn't think much of the Vikings coming into this season - thought they'd be about an 8-8 club. I'm not going to overreact to the bad start, but I also don't think this team can go 9-5 from here on out. They are definitely off my list. Basically the same goes for San Diego.

Not a single person so far has indicated they think the Bengals will end up with a losing season. Interesting. It's almost like we are all forgetting that they are the Bengals. I know theye were a somewhat trendy pick this preseason to step forward -- but honestly, there isn't a single Cinty naysayer out there who will predict a Bengals collapse that, admittedly, would be absolutely in keeping with this franchise's recent history? Ooooh, the Bengals fall apart, who could have seen it coming? Sure, I think they are a solid-looking team on paper, too -- but there's a lot of baggage in wearing those uniforms.

[Easy Mac]

I liken it to the Vandy bandwagon this year in college football (which I predicted here). Yeah, we probably shouldn't assume they'll be bowl eligible since it hasn't happened since I was born, but there's something different about the team this year. Both have very solid QB's, guys who can make plays, and the schedules work out pretty well for them.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

If we set the over/under at 5.5, I'll take the over and bet you $100.

I don't bet on football. Come up with something other than cash and we'll go.

You are not normally one to stir up trouble, and yet here you are risking a banning by expressing positive opinions about the Vikings.

EDIT: Curious, do you know something we do not know about Tice getting fired?

[Maple Leafs]

I can still see the Ravens going 9-7. The defence should rebound, and the offense could improve slightly once Lewis either wakes up or they make the switch to Taylor.

[scooper]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not a single person so far has indicated they think the Bengals will end up with a losing season. Interesting. It's almost like we are all forgetting that they are the Bengals. I know theye were a somewhat trendy pick this preseason to step forward -- but honestly, there isn't a single Cinty naysayer out there who will predict a Bengals collapse that, admittedly, would be absolutely in keeping with this franchise's recent history? Ooooh, the Bengals fall apart, who could have seen it coming? Sure, I think they are a solid-looking team on paper, too -- but there's a lot of baggage in wearing those uniforms.

It depends on what you consider "recent history." As a Bengals fan, I consider recent history to mean the Marvin Lewis era, during which the team has finished 8-8 both years. One thing to consider about those two seasons is both got off to slow starts with the team playing well in the middle or down the stretch to get to 8-8. So I don't think you can point to recent history as a reason for them falling as it was their starts, not their finishes that cost them playoffs the last two seasons.

Also, consider the rest of the first half schedule:
at Chicago
Houston
at Jacksonville
at Tennessee
Steelers
Packers

With a 2-0 start, I think it's not only possible, but probably that this team has a winning record at the halfway mark.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Disagree vehemently here Corey.

Washington is going to lose 11-12 games, not 9.

And Minnesota will have trouble winning 6.

Yeah, i think we all agree Washington seems to be a lock to go 7-9 or worse.

I can see Minnesota tearing up a terrible division and getting a fair amount of wins outside it. I just dont see them being as bad as they've looked so far.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by scooper

As a Bengals fan, I consider recent history to mean the Marvin Lewis era

And if I were being held captive in Cinti, forced to be a Bengals fan, I would too.

[Grego]

2-0 teams losing more than 9 games.
Washington. Their strong defense won't be able to carry the offense. The win on Monday was a nice one for Gibbs, but that shouldn't have happened. Portis should improve some from last year, but I don't see the Brunell, Campbell, Ramsey to Moss/scabs hookup scaring too many d-coordinators. The teams on their tough schedule (the hardest in the NFC East) won't let Portis beat them and will be more than happy to dare Gibbs to beat them through the air (which ironically enough happned to Parcells).

New York. The football Giants will have an improved offense, with the Barber/Jacobs backfield doing a lot of damage. Manning has no reason not to improve with the addition of Burress, but their defense is horrible. Getting 16 starts from a rejuvinated Strahan may help, but I don't see him lasting all year.

0-2 teams winning more than 9 games.
I don't see any of these teams with a winning record.
Baltimore. They say defense win's championships, but not with an offense like this. The AFC's version of Washington, with Portis lite.
Houston. Their offense is better than it's looked so far. I think they have the best chance of this bunch to crack 9 wins, but I that defense and special teams unit will hold them back.
Oakland. I thought their defense was going to be bad, but whoa. They did needed to upgrade their defense this year but didn't.
SanDiego. Same problem as Oakland, but with the hardest schedule in the league.
GreenBay. I hate to see Brett Favre go out like this. I think the offense will turn around, but the defense will kill them. Not a good start for Bob Slowik. He should be ashamed to walk the streets of Green Bay after the Cleveland game.
Minnesoto. Hard to predict how all their moves on defense will pan out. They should be better. Their offense has no direction now though. Hard to believe, but I think their offense could be the worst in that division. When Green Bay is the cream of the offensive crop in your division, you're in a bad division.
Arizona. Their offense stunk last year, so how could a rookie running back(who quickly found a seat in Denny Green's doghouse) and a washed up Kurt Warner make this a playoff contender. I never did understand the buzz about Arizona this summer.

[Daimyo]

I'd say Washington has the highest chance of the 2-0's to miss 500 followed by the Giants. I certainly can't see both of them over 500.

Minnesota probably has the best chance to finish over 500 just because their division sucks so bad -- in any other division they wouldn't have a chance. San Diego seems like a logical choice, but I wouldn't feel comfortable putting money on it... No one predicted them to be good last year and its entirely possible the success was just a fluke. I'd like to say Baltimore has as much shot as anyone on the list, but I don't know... its so much harder to go 9-5 than 5-9 so its entirely possible none of the 0-2s will do it.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, an interesting corrolary, assuming you don't see Minnesota finishing above 500, which other team in the division possibly could have a chance to do so?

[Grego]

I don't believe anyone will get 8 wins in the NFC North.
I still think Detroit will win that division at 7 or 8 wins.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I don't bet on football. Come up with something other than cash and we'll go.

You are not normally one to stir up trouble, and yet here you are risking a banning by expressing positive opinions about the Vikings.

EDIT: Curious, do you know something we do not know about Tice getting fired?

Heh. I've been a Vikings fan since the days of the Purple People Eaters, so I'm about as bannable as they come in that respect.

The bet thing was really just to indicate how strongly I feel that they'll win 6+ games. Their schedule includes six games against the Bears, Lions, and Packers, plus games against the Browns, Giants, Ravens, and Saints (and other tougher foes). And I can't believe they suck so bad that they can't win at least six of those ten.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Heh. I've been a Vikings fan since the days of the Purple People Eaters, so I'm about as bannable as they come in that respect.

The bet thing was really just to indicate how strongly I feel that they'll win 6+ games. Their schedule includes six games against the Bears, Lions, and Packers, plus games against the Browns, Giants, Ravens, and Saints (and other tougher foes). And I can't believe they suck so bad that they can't win at least six of those ten.

Well, you do list teams in the bottom half of the league (except the Giants and maybe the Saints). And so far the Vikes have been worse than all of them.

I do believe they suck so bad that they can't win six of them, and I stand behind that statement. But, I don't risk money on NFL games as part of a carefully crafted treaty with myself regarding betting on something where I have passions and cannot be trusted to be objective. Oddly, I have no real passions about the NFC Norris, so I can be objective here, but still will not break the treaty and bet cash.

Now, if you wanted to risk somehting like displaying the other's IHOF banner.....

[TroyF]

The 2-0 teams who will fall:

Redskins.
Giants. (I know it's a risk picking two teams in the same division, but I say they split and don't win another game against the Cowboys or Eagles)

The 0-2 team who will rise:

SD. They are a better team than KC IMO and I think they'll move up, even with their tough schedule.

Minnesota: Say what you want about their offense right now. Or their defense. Or their idiotic head coach. I can't imagine them playing any worse than they have right now and look at that division. . . I wouldn't call it a sure thing,b ut it wouldn't shock me to see them start to turn it around. (also, I think the two teams they've played are pretty damned good football teams)

The only other team I can see changing their fortunes from 0-2 is the Ravens. I know they don't have a QB. But a defense like that can get hot. And if they get hot for an extended period, it's not inconceivable they could put together a long winning streak, especially in a league with the parity the NFL has.

[WSUCougar]

Samdari: How about this?

If you're right, I'll add "Samdari was right, the Vikings (5-11 or less) were worse than I thought" to my FOFC profile/banner until the start of the next NFL season.

If I'm right, you add "WSUCougar was right, the Vikings (6-10 or more) were better than I thought" to yours. Deal?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Grego

GreenBay. I hate to see Brett Favre go out like this. I think the offense will turn around, but the defense will kill them. Not a good start for Bob Slowik. He should be ashamed to walk the streets of Green Bay after the Cleveland game.

Jim Bates.. not Slowik.

And it should be Sherman walking the street in shame.. he is the one mainly responsible for giving him this load of crap to work with.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Samdari: How about this?

If you're right, I'll add "Samdari was right, the Vikings (5-11 or less) were worse than I thought" to my FOFC profile/banner until the start of the next NFL season.

If I'm right, you add "WSUCougar was right, the Vikings (6-10 or more) were better than I thought" to yours. Deal?

We need to add "And I was wrong." but otherwise, that sounds fine.