NFL 06/07 Talk

[alldaws1]

If you go on current standings, it would be the NFC West

The NFC East, South and AFC North are probably the toughest divisions. It'd have to be one of those two NFC divisions, though, because all four teams in each division have a decent enough chance to challenge for the top. I don't see the Browns doing any such thing, that's why I'd count out the AFC North.

I'll go with the NFC East, simply because if the Cowboys do poorly, I'll have a decent reason to blame ¬_¬

[NobBe Nobbs]

If you're counting the AFC North out because of the Browns, you have to count out the NFC West because of San Fran. They may have made improvements, but it's not enough to realistically see them beating the Seahawks or the Rams, or even the Cards if I were feeling nasty.

[livid]

If you're counting the AFC North out because of the Browns, you have to count out the NFC West because of San Fran. They may have made improvements, but it's not enough to realistically see them beating the Seahawks or the Rams, or even the Cards if I were feeling nasty.

[Hajjhowe]

I didn't mean closetst, I meant the best teams.

This clearly eliminates every NFC division

Oh, and I meant NFC West, not AFC West.

[alldaws1]

If you're counting the AFC North out because of the Browns, you have to count out the NFC West because of San Fran. They may have made improvements, but it's not enough to realistically see them beating the Seahawks or the Rams, or even the Cards if I were feeling nasty.

Well considering they already beat the Rams and almost came back to beat the Cards then...um, yeah. But I'm sure AD was just joking about the NFC West. I would and I'm a 49ers fan.

Yeah, as Livid said I wasn't being serious with the NFC West, just saying that if it's based on current records it would be the toughest seeing as every team has won at least one game unlike every other division.

[Cactus Drags]

You most certainly can, since that's not a valid opinion. This is Livid's original post, for the record:

Little tidbit that's been on ESPN a lot today: the last time Baltimore was 2-0 was their Super Bowl winning year. Not saying anything, but it's still an interesting fact that COULD lead to the future.

Note how he's not going straight out and saying anything is rock-solid to happen. Then look at your brother's reply:

Interesting fact? 2-0 means jack shit.

[livid]

You most certainly can, since that's not a valid opinion. This is Livid's original post, for the record:

Little tidbit that's been on ESPN a lot today: the last time Baltimore was 2-0 was their Super Bowl winning year. Not saying anything, but it's still an interesting fact that COULD lead to the future.

Note how he's not going straight out and saying anything is rock-solid to happen. Then look at your brother's reply:

Interesting fact? 2-0 means jack shit.

Look at how completely and totally he misses the point. Livid's point is that the last time the Ravens went 2-0 was the Superbowl year, and nothing more. What Dragsy is evidently thinking is that Livid is guaranteeing the Ravens to make the playoffs on the strength of their 2-0 start. As I said before, it's just plain not a valid opinion.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Uh...

...

TEXANS/SAINTS FOR THE SUPERBOWL! IT'S TRUE, DAMMIT, YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE!

[Vendetta]

Where still arguing about the Ravens and the whole 2-0 thing? Why don't you all get out of your basements...

The Ravens will continue to have a dominant defense...why....because I have them on my fantasy teams. Every year one of the defenses that I chose usually dominates for most of the season. Last year I chose Chicago, this year I chose Baltimore. 2002 I chose Tampa Bay... So yes, me and dominant defenses have a history together.

[Liam]

Not wanting to really sink back into the "2-0 tidbit" convo, but with sport I think it is as much about superstition as anything....as if if it happened before, maybe it can happen again.

And I love American Sports for those things. When Tampa Bay won the NHL Stanley Cup, they kept on about how Tampa had never lost a match when Brad Richards scored, amongst other things. I wish Football used more of those kinda things to be honest.

[jase12881]

Best conference is obviously the AFC as they have stronger teams, have nearly all the superbowls in the last few years, and have better overrall records.

However, you clearly meant to ask what the best division is

So...my opinion on that is:

hmm...One of the AFC divisions It's really hard to say. Most divisions in the AFC have two strong teams, a mediocre team and then one shit team.

AFC North if Baltimore is a legitimate contender. If not then AFC West.

[Cactus Drags]

What about the NFC East? I can see all those teams having decent years, although I'd suspect Dalls and New York would be the two to get to the playoffs.

[ROC]

Uh...

...

TEXANS/SAINTS FOR THE SUPERBOWL! IT'S TRUE, DAMMIT, YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE!

[Hajjhowe]

NFC East has parity, but none of them are going to win the Super Bowl i'd guess.

I mean if you wanted to know the most balanced division, they are probably it, witht he AFC East also showing a lot more parity now that the Pats have slowed down a little.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Hajjhowe

[VerbalPuke]

Not wanting to really sink back into the "2-0 tidbit" convo, but with sport I think it is as much about superstition as anything....as if if it happened before, maybe it can happen again.

And I love American Sports for those things. When Tampa Bay won the NHL Stanley Cup, they kept on about how Tampa had never lost a match when Brad Richards scored, amongst other things. I wish Football used more of those kinda things to be honest.

Yeah, those sort of factoids can almost give a fan false hope or the other fan more confidence. Let's assume we've got a game and the announcers mention that Chauncey Billups hasn't missed a free throw with under ten seconds ever (again I'm making this up). On one hand your Piston fan will think "in the bag, Chauncey is money" while the other fan will think "Shit, he's due for a miss, so maybe he wont cash these in".

It's the same in any sport really. When I watch a Lions game they flash something about the opposing RB not fumbling since November 10, 2003, I'll just say "alright, he's got to be due for one, hopefully it's now".

It's fun, and I always wonder who digs some of these stats up. The 2-0 thing is relatively easy to figure out, the last time the Lions started out 0-2, they didn't make the playoffs. Right? Anyway, the people that do this statistical research deserve credit for some of the outrageous shit they've pulled out.

[NobBe Nobbs]

And the Steelers go down to the Bengals.

[ACCBiggz]

And the Vikes to the Bears. I'll say this about Rex, he did check down a lot more in this game... however some stupid decisions still happened, but we came away with the win.

[VerbalPuke]

I was at the Lions/Packers game today and it was a blast. We lost. But it's almost like I expect it every week now, and almost feel apathetic to the outcomes. You could call me a defeated man, but I'll still be here every week cheering the boys in blue and silver on.

The defense just folded today. Kitna played fine, the offense looked good enough, but the defense had no pass rush. If you don't put a pass rush on a QB they will pick you apart, I don't care who it is. The same defense that looked so dominant against Seattle now looks like a pee wee football team.

By the way, Ford Field is a briliant stadium. I'd encourage anybody to go and check it out if they ever have the opportunity.

[zero]

And the Steelers go down to the Bengals.

We Dey? Yeah, go fuck yourself Cowher.

Seriously though, what a great fucking game that was. The Steelers have nobody to blame but themselves for that one though: stupid mistakes, missed opportunities, and acting like a bunch of assholes did them in.

[gunnar hendershow]

And the Ravens have apparently surrendered a TD (Hell if I know, I can't watch it).

We need to win to stay with the Bengals and of equal importance begin to make it an uphill battle for the Steelers to win the division.