NFL 2008

[rocksta]

As an Eagles fan I hate to say it but Donovan McNabb won't stay healthy. I'd love it if he did, because healthy he is an elite quarterback but the chances of that happening are slim to none. I see the Cowboys winning the division, or the Eagles having a shot at it with McNabb.

[livid]

Which is what I'm saying. With a healthy McNabb, Philly is the best team in that division. McNabb, when healthy, is the best QB in the NFC, and is top three in the NFL. He gets a lot of shit, but he's FUCKING GOOD. They don't really need top flight WRs, because they have Smith and Westbrook. It'd be nice to get some better guys in there, but they've done it before without them, and I see no reason, barring injury, why they couldn't do it again.

A lot of people, especially in the media, are big on Dallas. Tony Romo is a good QB. He's not a great QB, he's not an elite QB. He's a poor man's Brett Favre, without the top end ability Brett showed when he was younger.

EDIT: Jason Witten is probably a top three TE. The problem is... he's a TE. A TE is not going to beat you, unless his name is Kellen Winslow (thats Senior, for you youngins.) or Shannon Sharpe. He's not going to draw enough coverage off TO to make a difference.

Romo is a good QB, but he's not a great QB. There are at least FIVE established QBs I'd take over him, and at least two more I'd take over him based on potential (and homerism). Tom Brady and Peyton Manning go without saying. Throw in a healthy Donovan McNabb, Ben Roethlisberger, and Carson Palmer. Hell, I might even make an arguement for Matt Hasselback. Then Jay Cutler and JaMarcus Russell would probably be on my list if I was drafting a team. Going on production, Romo is probably top 10, going on ability and talent, he's not. Sorry.

Ehhh, I'll give you Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger and even Palmer (who has all the physical tools but suffers from that team being dreadful and the fact that Rudi Johnson isn't nearly as good as he was 2-3 years ago) but Hasselbeck? Hell no. And McNabb's problem IS staying healthy. You can't discount the man's frailty when considering the elite QB's in the league just because he has talent. Plenty of QB's in the league have talent but it's because there are other problems that prevent them from being near the top. McNabb's is his health.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Livid

[Maxx]

Ugh, the Romo thing. He's played in 2 playoff games, only one with a full season of experience behind him. Know who else didn't win a playoff game their first two times? Eli Manning. Oh yeah Peyton Manning took 4 tries to win a playoff game. Fucking christ, with the amount that people kick that idea around you'd think no QB ever in the history of the sport has lost a playoff game.

[alldaws1]

Ugh, the Romo thing. He's played in 2 playoff games, only one with a full season of experience behind him. Know who else didn't win a playoff game their first two times? Eli Manning. Oh yeah Peyton Manning took 4 tries to win a playoff game. Fucking christ, with the amount that people kick that idea around you'd think no QB ever in the history of the sport has lost a playoff game.

I think it's exaggerated by the fact that the Cowboys haven't won a Playoff game in 11 years. It'd be different if, say, Bledsoe had won one before we turned to Romo.

[livid]

And the fact that, ya' know, both those QB's were criticized endlessly until they actually did win playoff games.

So when Romo wins one, it'll stop. Until then, he's great in the regular season but has yet to prove that he can win when it matters...because he hasn't.

[Maxx]

Oh I understand the criticism and yeah, it deserves to be there because he hasn't won one. But people go way out of line with it and act like he's 0-20 in the Playoffs

[GhostMachine]

AFC

East - Patriots

North - Ravens

South - Jags or Colts

West - Chargers

Wild Card - Jags or Colts, Steelers. Jets will threaten but won't make it.

Sleepers - Browns

NFC

East - Cowboys

North - Packers

South - Saints

West - Seahawks

Wild Card - Eagles, Vikings

Sleepers - Cardinals

*edit* Maxx and AD, you make good points, but I also thinks its also exacerbated by the fact that Romo was treated more or less like the second coming when he started with the Cowboys. (And I wish people would get over the botched field goal hold that cost them the game in 2006, because the ball and field were wet and that could have happened to anyone)

Edited August 13, 2008 by GhostMachine

[Toe]

We are talking about a quarterback who threw for 36 TDs and over 4000 yards last season in Tony Romo. He is going to have plenty of opportunities to win in the playoffs.

[JStarr]

Which is what I'm saying. With a healthy McNabb, Philly is the best team in that division. McNabb, when healthy, is the best QB in the NFC, and is top three in the NFL. He gets a lot of shit, but he's FUCKING GOOD. They don't really need top flight WRs, because they have Smith and Westbrook. It'd be nice to get some better guys in there, but they've done it before without them, and I see no reason, barring injury, why they couldn't do it again.

A lot of people, especially in the media, are big on Dallas. Tony Romo is a good QB. He's not a great QB, he's not an elite QB. He's a poor man's Brett Favre, without the top end ability Brett showed when he was younger.

EDIT: Jason Witten is probably a top three TE. The problem is... he's a TE. A TE is not going to beat you, unless his name is Kellen Winslow (thats Senior, for you youngins.) or Shannon Sharpe. He's not going to draw enough coverage off TO to make a difference.

Romo is a good QB, but he's not a great QB. There are at least FIVE established QBs I'd take over him, and at least two more I'd take over him based on potential (and homerism). Tom Brady and Peyton Manning go without saying. Throw in a healthy Donovan McNabb, Ben Roethlisberger, and Carson Palmer. Hell, I might even make an arguement for Matt Hasselback. Then Jay Cutler and JaMarcus Russell would probably be on my list if I was drafting a team. Going on production, Romo is probably top 10, going on ability and talent, he's not. Sorry.

Ehhh, I'll give you Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger and even Palmer (who has all the physical tools but suffers from that team being dreadful and the fact that Rudi Johnson isn't nearly as good as he was 2-3 years ago) but Hasselbeck? Hell no. And McNabb's problem IS staying healthy. You can't discount the man's frailty when considering the elite QB's in the league just because he has talent. Plenty of QB's in the league have talent but it's because there are other problems that prevent them from being near the top. McNabb's is his health.

Why not, exactly? Hasselbeck's got five seasons of 3000 yards and four years of 20+ TD's, and that's with NEVER having the kinds of star receivers that Palmer, Manning, Brady, and now Romo have...AND for most of his Seattle tenure, spending a lot of plays handing off to Shaun Alexander. People like to talk about Hasselbeck like he's some schmuck who just keeps his job because Seattle can't find anyone better, when he's been to the playoffs the last five years, won a playoff game each of the last three, been to three Pro Bowls and one Super Bowl and just keeps going out and getting it done. This year, his yards may very well equal what Romo did last year...I doubt the TD's will reach 36, but still. Based on body of work, I'd take Hasselbeck ahead of Romo maybe 90 times out of 100.

[livid]

Not now though, that's the point. A few years ago? Yeah, I'd take Hasselbeck pretty highly but not anymore. He's getting older and he's starting to decline.

Sorry, should've clarified a bit more.

[Lowerdeck]

AFC

East: New England

North: Pittsburgh

South: Indy

West: San Diego

WCs: Jax and Cleveland

Sleeper: Houston

And I still believe the Jets won't get more than 6-7 wins this year. I also believe Buffalo will beat the Jets in the AFC East. That might just be the Pats fan in me, but I don't think they improved drastically to get them to playoff contention. .500: possible, but I can't even really see that unless Favre goes nuts.

NFC

East: Dallas

North: Green Bay

South: New Orleans

West: Seattle

WCs: Arizona and Philly

Sleeper: Arizona

I think GB will squeak past Minnesota, and Philly over Washington.

[Evil Chase K]

AFC

East - New England

North - Pittsburgh

South - Indianapolis

West - San Diego

Wild Card - Jacksonville, Houston

Sleeper - Houston

The AFC North has the toughest schedule in all of the NFL to start the season. We'll see how tough it looks come Week 8. But even if it remains the toughest schedule in the league, the Steelers have the advantage over the Browns because, well, they have to play the Browns twice. Cleveland has not beat Pittsburgh in almost 5 years. Not only that but they don't know how to win, and until they beat the Steelers...they'll continue to be #2 in the division. On top of that, their statistics were nearly identical to the Bengals last year. The only difference is they were able to finish drives.

NFC

East - Dallas

North - Minnesota

South - New Orleans

West - Seattle

Wild Card - Green Bay, Carolina

Sleeper - St. Louis

Dallas, though I feel they are overrated, are still the best in the East. New Orleans should be good if Sean Payton's playcalling doesn't kill them and they can stay healthy. Minnesota, I feel, will be the team to beat in the NFC if Tarvaris Jackson doesn't make too many mistakes (big IF though). Seattle could win 9 games and still run away with the NFC South. They'll be 1-and-done in the playoffs.

I don't think Green Bay will be that bad and Carolina seemingly improved in the right places in the Draft.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Evil Chase K

[JStarr]

Not now though, that's the point. A few years ago? Yeah, I'd take Hasselbeck pretty highly but not anymore. He's getting older and he's starting to decline.

Sorry, should've clarified a bit more.

3966 yards, 28 TD's, 12 int. last year.

All quarterbacks wish they could decline like that.

Anyway, some predix outta me.

AFC

North: Pittsburgh

East: New England

South: Indianapolis

West: San Diego

Wild Card: Cleveland, Denver

Sleeper: Oakland

I'm guessing it's residual Peyton-hate that has so many people picking the Jags this year, because I just can't pick a Marcus Stroud-less Jags team to get better than last year. The offense looks exactly the same, except for two new mediocre receivers to take over for the old mediocre receivers. The East and West are cake, although I don't think Denver is going to be as bad as some might expect. As Cutler keeps working with Marshall, Scheffler, and Stokley, I think he's gonna have a pretty hot season. Oakland just needs some better receivers for Russell to work with, and Javon Walker ain't it.

NFC

North: Minnesota

East: Dallas

South: New Orleans

West: Seattle

Wild Card: New York, Tampa Bay

Sleeper: Carolina

Much as I'd like to think Seattle as a team (not so much their QB but the rest of the team) is trying to sink, I just can't bring myself to pick Arizona, SF, or St. Louis to win the division. The East is a total war, where the entire division should be 8-8 or better. The Saints and Bucs might have a good tangle in the South, with Carolina possibly doing just enough to be annoying. I do think the Panthers could be much stronger offensively with Jonathan Stewart getting a lot of the carries, but I dunno about the defense. And in the North, Minnesota should take it close over Green Bay if Rodgers shows up every week. If not, the Vikings should win 10 and take the division by three games.

[livid]

No, I legitimately think that the Jaguars are better this year. While losing Stroud isn't great by any means, they still have Henderson and they have a better pass rush than last year as well (assuming Harvey is ever signed lol). Plus while Porter and Williamson aren't A+ acquisitions, it allows the team have more depth at the position than they had before. Regardless, everybody knows that the team is about smashmouth football in running the ball and great defensive play. And like I said, while Stroud's gone now, I don't see them losing as big of a step as you seem to think.

And this is coming from a huge Stroud fan. He's good, but I think allowing a quicker DT will help the team a bit more than just two guys clogging up space.

[EddieRuckus]

Didn't know Starr would be in here defending my team's QB, thanks since I'm too lazy to do it myself.

As for my opinion on everything, it seriously seems like Hasselbeck has improved by age rather than declined. He'd have great numbers in terms of yards and touchdowns, but he also had a lot of mental mistakes and seemed to still be struggling. The past two seasons he's seemed to calm down and just enjoy the game, and seems like a better quarterback than he was a long time ago. Not using stats or anything, but just from watching him play since I follow that team.

As for the rest of the Seahawks, I don't know if we can get as far as we did last year, especially with so many questions remaining. The RB situation is interesting for sure, and if Morris can keep doing what he has been doing, I won't worry too much about it. Our O-Line is always uncertain since Hutchinson left, and with the recent injury to Engram, which may keep him out of a few weeks of regular season, it will be up to the younger receivers to step up. Compared to the rest of the division though, I can definitely see us taking it, though you never know in the NFL.

[DMN in the House]

I can admit that maybe some of its my hate for how over hyped Romo is. He's not a bad QB, but I have a hard time putting him in my top five based on how talented I think he is. The production is there, yes. I still don't think he's the best QB in the NFC, and certainly not in the league. However, the most hyped position in the entire NFL is QB for the Dallas Cowboys. Always has been, probably always will be.

I made my prediction based on predicting a healthy season for McNabb. If he goes down, the prediction goes out the window, but if the main player on ANY team goes down, then so does that prediction. For instance, take New England. If Brady goes down, to they still win the AFC East? Well, probably, because the AFC East absolutely fucking sucks, but you get my point. I'm saying that this is the year McNabb stays healthy, and if he does, then I think Philly is the team to beat.

Donovan McNabb is the kind of QB that can carry a team with a lower talent level. He's shown it before. Tony Romo might be able to, but hasn't shown it yet.

[Maxx]

Yeah but you're basing your prediction on Donovan McNabb, who hasn't played a full season since 2003. We basically have no idea what a healthy Donovan McNabb can do anymore. I mean they had a healthy McNabb last season through the first 10 weeks and were only 4-5. I agree with you very much that the Eagles don't need top tier WRs to be good, and Donovan McNabb used to be a QB who can elevate a team, but he hasn't shown that ability in a while. Look at 2006, he was again healthy through the first 11 weeks and the Eagles were 5-6. So its not like the Eagles only fell off after McNabb got injured, for the last two years they were struggling with him at the helm.

The division is alot tougher than it was back when McNabb was younger and healthy too. Giants and the Cowboys have made the playoffs each of the last two years and the Redskins made it last year. In their division are the Giants, the Superbowl Champions, who while I don't expect them to repeat, certainly proved they're a formidable team, and the Cowboys, the team with the best record in the NFC, who's problems tend to only arise in December, generally after they've already made the playoffs.

Could the Eagles win the division? Sure, but it'll take alot of things going in the right direction including McNabb playing better than he has in the past 4 years, which I just don't think will happen.

[MyKILLv2.0]

I don’t see how picking Philly to win the division is hard buy. As you pointed out, a few years ago with a first place schedule, and McNabb out, the team still went 5-6. That tells me that the team is good, not just one player carrying the load. Do you honestly believe if you take Peyton Manning from the Colts for 11 games, that they will go 5-6? I don’t. Plus this year the Eagles will have a last place schedule… and as Washington showed last season, those two/three games can make all the difference in the world.

I picked Dallas to win the division, but I by no means believe they have it in the bag, or will run away with it. They have a more difficult first place schedule, plus the team has a lot of question marks with their secondary, and we’ve yet to see Marion Barber play a full season as the starter. Couple that with the fact that the Giants may suffer from the Superbowl hangover that has plagued NFC teams for the last half dozen years or so, and Washington not getting a last place schedule, on top of losing Joe Gibbs….

… I just don’t see how everything has to go the Eagles way to win the division. But I hope you’re right. I’d love to see Dallas win 12 or 13 games again.

[Maxx]

Oh yay scheduling arguements. A last place schedule? You make it sound like they get to play every sub .500 team in the league. NFL's scheduling has been much improved since the re-allignment.

Dallas and Philadelphia play all the same opponents, besides 2. This year that group of opponents consists of the NFC West and the AFC North. So the Eagles have to contend with the tough NFC East and the AFC North, Donovan will have to have his A Game all season to get the Eagles to the playoffs.

The two different teams?

Dallas plays Tampa Bay and Green Bay, two teams Romo has torn apart in the past two years. 5 TDs against Tampa in '06, 3 TDs against Green Bay last year.

Philly gets Chicago and Altanta. Alright, I'll give you Atlanta as the gift on their schedule, but Chicago's still got defense enough to give Philly problems.

So really the Cowboys and Eagles are running very similar schedules in terms of difficulty, with the Eagles getting 2 somewhat easier teams, but the Cowboys drawing two teams they've handled quite well in the past two years.

Basically, Philly winning the division is hard to buy because the division consists of both NFC wild card teams, one of which went on to win the Super Bowl, and the team with NFC's best record last year.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Maxx

[MyKILLv2.0]

Basically, Philly winning the division is hard to buy because the division consists of both NFC wild card teams, one of which went on to win the Super Bowl, and the team with NFC's best record last year.

Am I missing something? Doesn't Dallas have to play in that same division too? With the Superbowl champion, and a NFC Wild Card team? If you are going to make the arguement that the division is tough for one team to win, the same arguement has to apply when you are talking about the other teams in the division. My arguement wasn't that Dallas COULDN'T win the division it was that Philly COULD win the division.