NFL Off Topic

[N51_rob]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

What the heck are you smoking, it must be some good stuff if you think Kansas City can turn it around next season.
Not only will they need to overcome having a crappy offense with a crappy defense, changing coaches as well. Factor in they will need to actually beat an elite team in the Broncos and yeah, they are the unlikeliest team of the bunch IMO to go from worst to first.

I thought I made it clear that none of the AFC teams are likely to do it. But if I had to pick one, I would pick Kansas City. The AFC West currently is an awful division. If Peyton Manning didn't land there, Tebow could still be the starting QB there.

What in your mind makes you think Jacksonville can beat the Texans and Colts, that the Bills can beat the Patriots or that Cleveland can leap frog the Ravens, Steelers and Bengals to win the division. None of the 4 teams listed for the AFC are likely to win their division but if you had to pick one, which one would you pick?

[Chrisksaint]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

I guess if anyone besides Atlanta wins the NFC South next season you can try to spin it as worst to first being all 3 other teams were 7-9 lol.

However I don't really see any of those teams on that list making a huge turnaround, Arizona has the most potential if they can get consistent QB play but that's a solid division now.

[N51_rob]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Really hard to say before coaches are settled and we see what happens in free agency. Bowe likely not returning to KC for example. Another team competing for #1 in the AFC West will probably coincide with Manning's retirement if Denver can stay healthy.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I like the talent that KC has collected on defense. Not elite yet, but they have an elite talent at every level of the defense IMO.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

I'm gonna have to disagree here. I think Jacksonville, Detroit and even Buffalo would have a harder time. They also don't need to beat the Broncos to win the division, theoretically.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2

Why do the other teams have a harder time? The AFC East is almost identical to the AFC West in terms of strength. The South is the best of the four. The NFC North is toughest of them all, but Detroit is the best team of the four.

In terms of talent, I'd list these rosters Detroit, Buffalo, KC, Jax, with a wide margin between Buffalo and KC.

[mestevo]

I like the talent that KC has collected on defense. Not elite yet, but they have an elite talent at every level of the defense IMO.

I really loved the offense too, but there's that while QB thing.

I think the Chiefs could have had a run similar to Denver if they had landed Manning, but they didn't and now Bowe is probably gone and Charles has another 1500 yards logged on his treads.

Reportedly Clark Hunt reached out to Manning to ask why he ruled out KC and the answer was Pioli.

Just hard to make any predictions with so much that has to play out.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[N51_rob]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Why do the other teams have a harder time? The AFC East is almost identical to the AFC West in terms of strength. The South is the best of the four. The NFC North is toughest of them all, but Detroit is the best team of the four.

In terms of talent, I'd list these rosters Detroit, Buffalo, KC, Jax, with a wide margin between Buffalo and KC.

Margin can't be that wide between KC and Buffalo. There is more talent on KC's defense than Buffalo's (IMO). They both need a QB, both have quality at the RB position. Currently (because Bowe is leaving) they have similar skill at WR.

Where do you see this talent disparity exactly?

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

My guess is that it's because pit and bal are on a bit of decline compared to the past while only the Bengals have shown signs of life as of late. I don't think next year, but I could see the browns winning the division in the next 3 years realistically.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2

The decline of the Ravens is greatly exaggerated. As I said in another thread, they are being scrutinized bc of their chances at winning the SB. They still won the division 2 years straight, have made the playoffs and won a playoff game every year since Harbaugh (and Flacco) have come to town, are incredibly difficult to beat at home, yada, yada. The same can be said for the decline of the Steelers. The talk is about their old D but that same D finished #1 this year and that's with Troy P sitting most of the season out. Ben plays 2 more games and they are likely in the playoffs right now.

If we compare the divisions, GB to BAL, MIN to CIN, CHI to PIT... really don't see how CLE is more likely to make noise than DET (just considering the teams they have to climb over).

What the heck are you smoking, it must be some good stuff if you think Kansas City can turn it around next season.
Not only will they need to overcome having a crappy offense with a crappy defense, changing coaches as well. Factor in they will need to actually beat an elite team in the Broncos and yeah, they are the unlikeliest team of the bunch IMO to go from worst to first.

You don't seem to know much about the individuals that make up the Chiefs roster. They have pro bowl level talent on both offense and defense. They don't have enough (starting with the all important QB) but I'm pretty sure that's true with every team in the discussion here.

[volstopfan14]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

The Chiefs have a chance to be a good team if they could find a QB. They have some talent, I'm just not sure where the QB is going to come from. As long as Manning is in Denver it will be hard for anyone else to win the division though.

[ubernoob]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

The decline of the Ravens is greatly exaggerated. As I said in another thread, they are being scrutinized bc of their chances at winning the SB. They still won the division 2 years straight, have made the playoffs and won a playoff game every year since Harbaugh (and Flacco) have come to town, are incredibly difficult to beat at home, yada, yada. The same can be said for the decline of the Steelers. The talk is about their old D but that same D finished #1 this year and that's with Troy P sitting most of the season out. Ben plays 2 more games and they are likely in the playoffs right now.

If we compare the divisions, GB to BAL, MIN to CIN, CHI to PIT... really don't see how CLE is more likely to make noise than DET (just considering the teams they have to climb over).

Perhaps decline was the wrong word. I should have said the cracks are starting to show a bit more for Bal/Pit.

I'm a fan of the Ravens, but playing them isn't as scary as it used to be. The Steelers had a semi-weak schedule this year (though I don't hold that against them too much.) and they've seemed... "off" (for lack of a better word) throughout the year.

I would put GB over Bal/Pit/Cin (even more so at next year when we aren't missing so many starters), Bal/Cin over Chi/Min. Pittsburgh and Chicago both benefited this year from playing weaker teams (Chicago having the strong part of their schedule coincide perfectly with their "fall".)

[N51_rob]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Not that a first round pick is something to sneeze at, but the Rams pick they will get from Washington for RGIII is at its very best right now is #21. Considering what it's could've been that still has to be a little disappointing. The Rams will also be picking 16th this year.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Margin can't be that wide between KC and Buffalo. There is more talent on KC's defense than Buffalo's (IMO). They both need a QB, both have quality at the RB position. Currently (because Bowe is leaving) they have similar skill at WR.

Where do you see this talent disparity exactly?

I think Fitzpatrick is a better QB, by a bit of a margin. That isn't huge, but enough to make a difference.

RB, I think Buffalo and KC have somewhat equal talent, just different styles.

I think Buffalo has one really good receiving tight end in Scott Chandler and I'm not sure who KC has.

I think Buffalo has a better overall offensive line, especially when it comes to pass blocking.

I think Buffalo has better defensive ends in Mario Williams and Mark Anderson (if Anderson can actually play a game).

I think Buffalo has two fantastic DTs in Dareus and Williams.

To cut this short, Sheppard is the Bill's weakest defensive link, followed by our lack of a true #2 corner and a weak SS. If Buffalo loses Byrd, that will create a massive hole.

In all honesty, Buffalo has the pieces to succeed. They need depth, and a few starters as well as a coach to put it together. Whether the latter happens is yet to be seen.

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Perhaps decline was the wrong word. I should have said the cracks are starting to show a bit more for Bal/Pit.

I'm a fan of the Ravens, but playing them isn't as scary as it used to be. The Steelers had a semi-weak schedule this year (though I don't hold that against them too much.) and they've seemed... "off" (for lack of a better word) throughout the year.

I would put GB over Bal/Pit/Cin (even more so at next year when we aren't missing so many starters), Bal/Cin over Chi/Min. Pittsburgh and Chicago both benefited this year from playing weaker teams (Chicago having the strong part of their schedule coincide perfectly with their "fall".)

Talking cracks is subjective so I won't argue too much, I just think recent history clouds the thoughts on some things. The Ravens D isn't as scary but that's expected when you lose the reigning DPOY, HOF middle linebacker, potential pro bowl corner, and have two other likely HOFers in Reed and Ngata playing most of the season with serious injuries.

In short, you mention the starters GB missed and I'd say BAL trumps what they had to deal with, with PIT right there as well. Injuries are what they are and will happen every year. Memories of how teams played tends to be better as well. The Ravens had issues on the road last year as well... they still won the division. NE looked like they wouldn't make the playoffs at one point this year... they still ended in the #2 spot. These teams are better, relatively speaking, than they're often given credit for bc they're aren't graded on that type of curve. "Average" teams like the Giants win the SB or the Cards make it there. These teams are declining as much as people want to believe. I don't think any of these teams are "off" I just think expectations are too high. I didn't think the Packers were off early in the season... all teams lose, it takes 17 weeks for the smoke to clear.

If we are to compare though, I still don't think the Packers are quite as far ahead as you make it seem with their oline and running game. Let Rodgers miss the games Ray missed or Ben missed... hell, or Cutler or Forte missed. Not out of the question at all that the chips can fall in a way for Detroit to win the division. Same is true for Cleveland, I just don't see how it'd be any easier for Cleveland in this case.

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

I think Fitzpatrick is a better QB, by a bit of a margin. That isn't huge, but enough to make a difference.

RB, I think Buffalo and KC have somewhat equal talent, just different styles.

I think Buffalo has one really good receiving tight end in Scott Chandler and I'm not sure who KC has.

I think Buffalo has a better overall offensive line, especially when it comes to pass blocking.

I think Buffalo has better defensive ends in Mario Williams and Mark Anderson (if Anderson can actually play a game).

I think Buffalo has two fantastic DTs in Dareus and Williams.

To cut this short, Sheppard is the Bill's weakest defensive link, followed by our lack of a true #2 corner and a weak SS. If Buffalo loses Byrd, that will create a massive hole.

In all honesty, Buffalo has the pieces to succeed. They need depth, and a few starters as well as a coach to put it together. Whether the latter happens is yet to be seen.

It really just sounds like you don't know what KC has. A chiefs fan would be better to make the case than me but giving you all that you listed (at worse, they're too close to argue with... with some being flat out on point) KC has a better FS and likely a better overall secondary. I'd personally take Bowe over Johnson, but would definitely take the receiving corp in KC overall over Buffalo. I will argue one point to an extent... Chandler is serviceable but nothing to write home about. Any edge I'd give him over the KC TEs pretty much comes from playing in a more pass friendly offense.

In terms of talent I believe the teams are closer than you think.

[ubernoob]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Talking cracks is subjective so I won't argue too much, I just think recent history clouds the thoughts on some things. The Ravens D isn't as scary but that's expected when you lose the reigning DPOY, HOF middle linebacker, potential pro bowl corner, and have two other likely HOFers in Reed and Ngata playing most of the season with serious injuries.

In short, you mention the starters GB missed and I'd say BAL trumps what they had to deal with, with PIT right there as well. Injuries are what they are and will happen every year. Memories of how teams played tends to be better as well. The Ravens had issues on the road last year as well... they still won the division. NE looked like they wouldn't make the playoffs at one point this year... they still ended in the #2 spot. These teams are better, relatively speaking, than they're often given credit for bc they're aren't graded on that type of curve. "Average" teams like the Giants win the SB or the Cards make it there. These teams are declining as much as people want to believe. I don't think any of these teams are "off" I just think expectations are too high. I didn't think the Packers were off early in the season... all teams lose, it takes 17 weeks for the smoke to clear.

If we are to compare though, I still don't think the Packers are quite as far ahead as you make it seem with their oline and running game. Let Rodgers miss the games Ray missed or Ben missed... hell, or Cutler or Forte missed. Not out of the question at all that the chips can fall in a way for Detroit to win the division. Same is true for Cleveland, I just don't see how it'd be any easier for Cleveland in this case.

Detroit's problems, to me, lie in the mental aspect of the game. Cleveland's issues lie elsewhere. Detroit has the wrong mentality and plays too undisciplined to be a true force.

I'm not into the comparing injury game (to me, I'm honestly surprised we won the division and even made the playoffs this year) because a lot of the teams are banged up. Our running game took a huge hit with all the OLine injuries, Benson, Starks among the other injuries. At one point we had 16 players who were starters at some point all out. Above average teams (like the ones originally discussed) still find ways to win.

I don't think the Ravens are on a decline, I just think they're finding a new identity as the defense ages/deals with injuries. The Steelers are the team from that division that I think are trending downward more than anyone. They didn't face a strong schedule, and came out at 8-8. That being said, them taking a step back is would still result in them being average to slightly-above-average.

My reasoning for Cleveland over Detroit really isn't about the teams in the division. Their offense (scoring wise) wasn't too far behind Detroit's, their defense is better and they don't make near as many mental mistakes as Detroit (which reflects on the coaching staff.)

I think Schwartz was akin to how Sherman was here in Green Bay. A good coach to get that team back into contention and bring something needed, but unable to get them over that necessary hump to take the next step.

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic 2012

Detroit's problems, to me, lie in the mental aspect of the game. Cleveland's issues lie elsewhere. Detroit has the wrong mentality and plays too undisciplined to be a true force.

I'm not into the comparing injury game (to me, I'm honestly surprised we won the division and even made the playoffs this year) because a lot of the teams are banged up. Our running game took a huge hit with all the OLine injuries, Benson, Starks among the other injuries. At one point we had 16 players who were starters at some point all out. Above average teams (like the ones originally discussed) still find ways to win.

I don't think the Ravens are on a decline, I just think they're finding a new identity as the defense ages/deals with injuries. The Steelers are the team from that division that I think are trending downward more than anyone. They didn't face a strong schedule, and came out at 8-8. That being said, them taking a step back is would still result in them being average to slightly-above-average.

My reasoning for Cleveland over Detroit really isn't about the teams in the division. Their offense (scoring wise) wasn't too far behind Detroit's, their defense is better and they don't make near as many mental mistakes as Detroit (which reflects on the coaching staff.)

I think Schwartz was akin to how Sherman was here in Green Bay. A good coach to get that team back into contention and bring something needed, but unable to get them over that necessary hump to take the next step.

Wouldn't argue any of what you said between Detroit and Cleveland. My initial response was to the idea that Detroit had a harder road to climb with the teams in their division than Cleveland. That, I don't agree with at all.

As for PIT, they've been here before. They're always competing for the top of what is always a tough division. I don't expect that to change any time soon... nothing I saw this year changed my mind. They've got great skill positions, big young pieces on the oline and will always have one of the top defenses. They aren't going anywhere (and trust me, I wish they would).