NFL 2008

[gunnar hendershow]

I'm not gonna quote anything, but remember, the Titans are a penalty away from having a loss to the Ravens. That's what happens when they go up against a strong defense, and there are a few of them in the AFC and they are bound to meet one if they end up making it all the way to Tampa.

Oh, and might I add, against most other teams that game would have seen the Ravens getting beaten senseless.

Edited October 29, 2008 by damshow

[Kyle_]

I'm not gonna quote anything, but remember, the Titans are a penalty away from having a loss to the Ravens. That's what happens when they go up against a strong defense, and there are a few of them in the AFC and they are bound to meet one if they end up making it all the way to Tampa.

Oh, and might I add, against most other teams that game would have seen the Ravens getting beaten senseless.

With that thinking every game this year could be different. Saying " they were a penalty away" is dumb, because that could possibly happen in any game.

They've had an easy schedule, so what? They are 7-0, and that's all that matters.

[Meacon Keaton]

Doesn't matter if the Titans have alternated between the Lions and Bengals for seven weeks, if you're 7-0, you're a damn good football team. No such thing as an easy schedule in the NFL, because any team can beat you anytime. Will they go undefeated? Highly unlikely. Will they go to the Super Bowl? They have as much of a shot as anybody at this point.

[IAceI]

Titans won't make the Superbowl. I know people say defence wins championships but that offence is pretty meh, in my eyes. It's all pretty much on CJ and White. They have no pass game with Collins and average-at-best receivers. The second they come up against a team that can score on their good defence (which they haven't yet) and that forces them to win on offence (or even worse, win by passing!) then they will lose. If they have to get into the play offs before they come up against someone like that, then fine - but I 99% of the way can't see them winning the Superbowl at all.

There's better teams than them out there.

[HailtotheYo]

Well actually, until someone beats them then no there aren't better teams out there (and please, understand what that actually says rather than jumping on it like a moron).

Chase - Um yeah, they are the same team. They've got mediocre at best past offenses, amazing D's, and thrive off the run game. The difference is that Pitt is shit on special teams and the Titans aren't. I couldn't be more right in saying that they're the same team.

Ok seriously, the poor schedule comments are just retarded. Take a look around the league. NOBODY has played a "hard" schedule due to the fact that the entire league is pretty average. I mean hell if you're going to dock the Titans for playing a "weak" schedule, then dock the G-Men. The Giants have beaten the Rams/Niners/Bengals/Seahawks for four of their wins. Spectfuckingtacular. I'll even admit that the other "top teams" mentioned have had a "harder" schedule than the Titans have. Fair enough, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Titans schedule = shit, so does the Giants.

The Colts get no love from me because I've looked ahead. Their schedule plays into EXACTLY what I was talking about with the "top teams beating each other up." Three of their next four are against the Pats/Chargers/Steelers with road trips to Pitt and SD. Oh by the way the newfound offense of the Texans is their other game there. They'll got 2-2 at best which will give them six losses going into the last five games. Oh by the way they end the season with Jacksonvill and Tennessee. Good luck. It's possible very, VERY possible they go 1-3 over the next four and are all but done then and there.

I'm on the side of the Titans right now because all of the other teams being billed as the "top" have all looked like utter shit this year already. Dallas @ St. Louis anybody ? The Giants @ Clevelend anybody ? Pitt @ Philly (blah blah Philly's good etc, well that vaunted Pitt running game got handled just like everyone wants to talk about with the Titans). All of that has yet to happen to the Titans. Until it does, you can't really argue to much against it.

I mean hell, one of the teams off that weak schedule of the Titans has handled the Colts and Broncos for two of their three wins ... which kind of deflates that weak schedule argument that is weak in itself.

[alldaws1]

Well actually, until someone beats them then no there aren't better teams out there (and please, understand what that actually says rather than jumping on it like a moron).

Record wise, yes they're the best team in the NFL. You can cling to that all you want. I find it hard to put them at the top of the list when they've not played a 5- or 6-win team, though. They're probably the best team in the AFC right now but I think there's three, four, maybe even five NFC teams better than them.

Chase - Um yeah, they are the same team. They've got mediocre at best past offenses, amazing D's, and thrive off the run game. The difference is that Pitt is shit on special teams and the Titans aren't. I couldn't be more right in saying that they're the same team.

You think the Steelers have a mediocre at best pass offense, just like the Titans? So you think there's no difference between Ben Roethlisberger and Kerry Collins? No difference between Hines Ward & Santonio Holmes and Justin Gage & Justin McCareins, no difference between Heath Miller and Bo Scaife? Give me a break. Sure, the Steelers aren't having the best year statistically passing the ball but I put a huge chunk of that down to the offensive line being banged up and mucked around. The difference is that the Steelers are 24th in pass offense due to injuries and suspensions. The Titans are 28th in pass offense while being pretty much at full health.

Ok seriously, the poor schedule comments are just retarded. Take a look around the league. NOBODY has played a "hard" schedule due to the fact that the entire league is pretty average. I mean hell if you're going to dock the Titans for playing a "weak" schedule, then dock the G-Men. The Giants have beaten the Rams/Niners/Bengals/Seahawks for four of their wins. Spectfuckingtacular. I'll even admit that the other "top teams" mentioned have had a "harder" schedule than the Titans have. Fair enough, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Titans schedule = shit, so does the Giants.

I have docked the Giants for their schedule but they've beaten the Redskins and Steelers, two of the better teams in the league.

Edited October 29, 2008 by AD

[HailtotheYo]

Record wise, yes they're the best team in the NFL. You can cling to that all you want. I find it hard to put them at the top of the list when they've not played a 5- or 6-win team, though. They're probably the best team in the AFC right now but I think there's three, four, maybe even five NFC teams better than them.

First off, don't try to guess what I'm saying because I put down exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing to infer from what I put down here. If I thought there wasn't a difference between players, I'd say it. That said ...

I don't have a problem with your opinion at all. However, exactly how many of those NFC teams will even have a CHANCE to play the Titans in the scenario in which we're having this discussion ? I mean both the Titans and one of those four/five teams would have to make the Super Bowl for that to be relevent to this conversation. You might be absolutely right that all 6 of the NFC playoff teams (or a couple that don't make it) are better than the Titans. Doesn't matter. The Titans are in the AFC and come playoff time all they have to do is be best in the AFC. I can't remember the last time it mattered, or anyone that spoke on the football season mentioned anything about a super bowl participant being "down the line" as far as the best teams in the game. Don't blame the Titans for where and who they play, that's up to the NFL.

You think the Steelers have a mediocre at best pass offense, just like the Titans? So you think there's no difference between Ben Roethlisberger and Kerry Collins? No difference between Hines Ward & Santonio Holmes and Justin Gage & Justin McCareins, no difference between Heath Miller and Bo Scaife? Give me a break. Sure, the Steelers aren't having the best year statistically passing the ball but I put a huge chunk of that down to the offensive line being banged up and mucked around. The difference is that the Steelers are 24th in pass offense due to injuries and suspensions. The Titans are 28th in pass offense while being pretty much at full health.

I don't think it, it's true. You're only as good as the numbers you're putting up. Big Ben IS better than Kerry Collins in my opinion. So what ? He's not producing that much better. Last time I checked, injuries and suspensions were part of the game. It's the Titans fault they're healthy and don't get in trouble ? Please. You can make player comparisons all you want, but what matters is what's being produced. Hell, Peyton is the best (top 3 at worst) QB in the game but that means dick all at the moment. He's not playing like it and the issues with the team hinder that situation even more. That's football. If I were to make a list of the top 5 QB's in the league right now MANY of the top regarded QB's wouldn't be on it because they're playing like shit. The injuries and excuses don't get you a break in the W-L column and they don't in this discussion. If Holmes is a fucking tool and can't stay on the field, guess what ? It's SOL for Pitt. You can chalk their 24th being up to whatever you want, but the fact is that it's 24th and it's mediocre at best. Better individual players does not = better team. Oh, and last year, they finished 22nd in the league in passing offense. Like I said, mediocre at best.

Ok, so the Titans are 28th in pass offense just about as healthy as a team can be. And ? They're a running team .... 300+ what, two weeks ago ? They don't HAVE to be better than that, all they have to do is be efficient. They are. Do we really want to bring turnovers into this ? That'd really blow everyone else out of the water.

Edited October 29, 2008 by HailtotheKing

[alldaws1]

I don't have a problem with your opinion at all. However, exactly how many of those NFC teams will even have a CHANCE to play the Titans in the scenario in which we're having this discussion ? I mean both the Titans and one of those four/five teams would have to make the Super Bowl for that to be relevent to this conversation. You might be absolutely right that all 6 of the NFC playoff teams (or a couple that don't make it) are better than the Titans. Doesn't matter. The Titans are in the AFC and come playoff time all they have to do is be best in the AFC. I can't remember the last time it mattered, or anyone that spoke on the football season mentioned anything about a super bowl participant being "down the line" as far as the best teams in the game. Don't blame the Titans for where and who they play, that's up to the NFL.

I wasn't talking about the Super Bowl or even the playoffs. You said there are no better teams out there right now than the Titans. There are. Just because their record is a game or two inferior doesn't mean they're not as good, in most cases their record is a game or two inferior because they've actually played some decent teams.

It's the Titans fault they're healthy and don't get in trouble ? Please. You can make player comparisons all you want, but what matters is what's being produced.

Ok, so the Titans are 28th in pass offense just about as healthy as a team can be. And ? They're a running team .... 300+ what, two weeks ago ?

Yeah because that's what I said

You're right, what matters is what's being produced but you also have to take into account who it's being produced against. For example, you mentioned the 300+ rushing yards game the other week. It was against the Chiefs for crying out loud, my grandmother could run for 200 yards and two scores against them.

[Plankton]

I'm not gonna quote anything, but remember, the Titans are a penalty away from having a loss to the Ravens. That's what happens when they go up against a strong defense, and there are a few of them in the AFC and they are bound to meet one if they end up making it all the way to Tampa.

Oh, and might I add, against most other teams that game would have seen the Ravens getting beaten senseless.

With that thinking every game this year could be different. Saying " they were a penalty away" is dumb, because that could possibly happen in any game.

Exactly. That is 100% homer logic, which we have all been guilty of at some point or another and probably all will be again. I did this once all throughout one of the Bengals' 8-8 seasons where after every loss I picked one big play the defense let happen, or one dumb penalty, or one dropped pass that "shouldn't" have happened and said that they should have won. I told myself that they were the better team and should have one more win in their record. At the end of the 8-8 season, I pretty much had them calculated somewhere around 14-2. It's terrible logic, because they did commit that penalty, or let that big play happen, or drop the pass. The NFL is a very competitive league and sometimes it comes down to a play or two, but the better teams are the ones that don't make those few crucial mistakes.

Chase - Um yeah, they are the same team. They've got mediocre at best past offenses, amazing D's, and thrive off the run game. The difference is that Pitt is shit on special teams and the Titans aren't. I couldn't be more right in saying that they're the same team.

I actually had this exact same thought when I was defending the Titans earlier. Look at the stats:

The Titans are 28th in passing. The Steelers are 24th.

The Titans are 4th in rushing. The Steelers are 20th.

The Titans are 4th in overall defense. The Steelers are 1st.

I think the main difference is that the Titans have a mediocre QB and a great o-line, while Pittsburgh has a good QB and a terrible o-line. Health conditions or not, it doesn't change their production. It's very similar, and actually leans more in the favor of the Titans. Statistics are completely objective, but the analysis of them is not. However, I'm not sure how you can twist these around to say that Pittsburgh is a better or much different team other than saying that the Titans have an easier schedule. Considering their next two opponents (Packers and Bears), we may have a better idea in two weeks.

Well actually, until someone beats them then no there aren't better teams out there (and please, understand what that actually says rather than jumping on it like a moron).

Record wise, yes they're the best team in the NFL. You can cling to that all you want. I find it hard to put them at the top of the list when they've not played a 5- or 6-win team, though. They're probably the best team in the AFC right now but I think there's three, four, maybe even five NFC teams better than them.

I was going to drop CHFF's Quality Standings because we got into a bit of a riff over it, but you brought this up, so here are some stats to back you up.

Of Tennessee's 7 wins, only one of their victories has come against a team with a record higher than .500 (which was the Ravens). Of course this could fluctuate depending on how well the Vikings, Colts, Jaguars, and Texans do in the next two months. But six of their seven wins have come against teams struggling to have a winning record at this point. They have Green Bay and Chicago coming up though (both are 4-3).

More interesting (as you pointed out, AD) is that they have lost to zero opponents with a winning record, which signifies that they are largely untested against the elite of the NFL this year (but really, at this point who the hell really knows who that is anyways).

To put it into perspective, teams that have beaten at least three other teams with a +.500 record are Washington, Dallas, Tampa Bay, and Carolina. All of whom, like you guessed, were NFC teams.

I think the Titans are a good team, and in a traditional ranking system, you have to put them at #1. You play with the schedule you've been given, and there's not a whole lot else they can do but be 7-0 at this point. But if you're ranking teams based on how good they actually are--schedule be damned--it's hard to put them over some of the teams in the NFC who are performing very well. In that scenario, your schedule can work against you, and you'll just have to prove yourself in the playoffs.

But so what? The Titans are pretty much guaranteed to make the playoffs, and if they really are the best, then they'll advance all the way through; then Titans fans can gloat. But until then, it's hard for them to prove themselves against the NFL's "elite" when they don't have them on their schedule.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Plankton

[HailtotheYo]

I wasn't talking about the Super Bowl or even the playoffs. You said there are no better teams out there right now than the Titans. There are. Just because their record is a game or two inferior doesn't mean they're not as good, in most cases their record is a game or two inferior because they've actually played some decent teams.

See, I knew what was coming when I said it because I even put the disclaimer on it:

Well actually, until someone beats them then no there aren't better teams out there (and please, understand what that actually says rather than jumping on it like a moron).

I guess that was wishful thinking on my part (and no I'm not calling you a moron). The argument you're making here is the one that happens to college football all the time. There are people that will argue about USC all day long being the best team in CFB ... well they aren't. They've lost. There are three teams better than them. When playoff seedings come around what does the NFL use ? Record or record + SOS ? What I hate about this is that neither of us is going to hop on the other side of the fence. The fact of the matter is that they're producing/winning in the NFL. Their schedule thus far was not shit before any of the games were played this season. Minnesota/Jax/Indy were ALL picked to be top/playoff teams this year. Cincy was supposed to do some damage as well. None of them have panned out. Again, there's now way of knowing that until the season starts. If you really want to talk about the SOS, then wait until the end of the season when we actually know how good/bad ALL of the teams were.

From here on out, the Bears play the Vikings/Lions/Jaguars/Texans/Rams for five of the remaining nine. Well, those teams suck so the rest of the Bears schedule is weak and if their record is good it's because of their weak remaining schedule. See how retarded that sounds ? I don't buy into the weak schedule bit because it's the NFL. EVERYBODY is a professional athlete and regardless of how "bad" a team is, they still win games. I mean, that "shitty" Viking team that Tennesse beat has beaten the one loss Panthers and New Orleans. It's all relative. It isn't like there's a CFL team thrown in there.

I guess New England's undefeated regular season isn't all that impressive because the AFC East was beyond shit, they played 7-9 Cincy, 5-11 Baltimore, and 8-8 Philly. I mean 9 of the 16 wins were against .500 or worse teams, that isn't a very strong schedule at all. Yeah whatever. Wins are wins are wins in the NFL.

Ok, so the Titans are 28th in pass offense just about as healthy as a team can be. And ? They're a running team .... 300+ what, two weeks ago ?

Yeah because that's what I said

You're right, what matters is what's being produced but you also have to take into account who it's being produced against. For example, you mentioned the 300+ rushing yards game the other week. It was against the Chiefs for crying out loud, my grandmother could run for 200 yards and two scores against them.

Sucks when people just throw shit out there for you doesn't it ? Yeah, KC does have a shitty run defense. So a GOOD team should put up big numbers, and that's what they did. That's what GOOD teams do. It isn't like the KC run defense hasn't shown up at all. They've held the Pats/Broncs/Jets to 135 or less, indluding 94 for the Broncs. That's the difference between our viewpoints though. You see that 300+ as a result of them playing shit run defense, I see it as a result of the Titans being that good at running the ball and doing what they should against a lesser team.

[IAceI]

Guess there's only one way to settle it, but we'll have to wait until the play offs.

And worse yet, the Superbowl when they'll have to come up against the best team on show in the NFC.

It'd be lovely to see how a system would fare if all teams had to play 31 other teams. I know it's not going to happen, but it would obviously provide the fairest way of comparison even though you would still have other extraneous factors such as teams nursing injuries at one point. But yeah, with no teams like New York, Tampa Bay, Carolina, maybe even Dallas or Washington on their schedules and no possibility of playing them until the Super Bowl, we'll just have to wait.

So my stance on it all is, Tennessee are #1 ranked team in the league by virtue of no losses. 7-0 trumps 6-1 every day. If, by next week, both Tennessee and New York Giants are 7-1 well then I'll probably argue New York are deserving of the #1 spot. Until then, Tennessee are #1 ranked team. Do I think they're the best team of all 32? Not really but that's why the Super Bowl is there - that'll determine it.

[naiwf]

I'll just say this, as of today Tennessee is the best team in the AFC and the Giants are the best team in the NFC but that doesn't mean that either team will be the best when the season ends. Last year, Dallas had the best record in the NFC and lost their first playoff game to a lowly 10-6 team who won the Super Bowl. The regular season only counts for so much. Let's not forget the Pats went 16-0 and didn't win a ring. I liken the Titans to that kind of team right now. I'm just not sold on a team that is so run heavy because they could run into a horrible weather game where the opponents can stack the box and force Kerry Collins to beat them. If they win the championship they'll have earned it because of what they did against the teams they meet in the playoffs. Jockeying for position in the regular season is just that. Unlike college football we have a tournament that decides who's the best at the end of the year.

[Evil Chase K]

The Steelers are 20th in rushing because of Parker's injury. When he comes back their running game will be much more potent.

You can't just look at stats and say that it's the sole indicator of a team's abilities. Hell the Titans have one game with over 200 yards of rushing, the 332 yard game against that awful Chiefs defense.

Now, in all of their other games (I find it interesting that they didn't hit 100 yards against the two best defenses they've played thus far, Baltimore and Minnesota, two teams with below average offenses) they have averaged 113 yards per game, which would put them tied with Carolina for 16th.

Now I understand that you can't just take a game away from them and that they did EARN those yards. But I would argue that the 332 yard performance was an anomaly, and that the 113 yard average is closer to where their offense really is.

Using ESPN.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com's stats it's clear to me that in the 2 games they didn't hit 100 yards rushing, they were able to barely hang on to a 13-10 win against Baltimore, and they beat a Vikings team that is 24th in the league with a -4 takeaway/giveaway ratio. The Vikings turned the ball over 4 times against the Titans, pretty much handcuffing the Vikings defense.

In that game against Minnesota, the longest drive the Titans had all game was the opening drive. An 11 play, 74 yard drive in which they kicked a field goal. The rest of their scoring drives went 33, 58, 11, 33, and 6 yards. They were not able to score a TD on any drive that started in their own territory.

It would be interesting to see if this trend continues over the rest of their wins. I think I shall look it up.

[CQI13]

I don't understand why everyone seems intent on taking things away from the winning team. "Oh it was the Chiefs" (who beat the Broncos). "Oh it was the turnovers" (which I'm sure the defense has no way of affecting). All I heard on the radio on Monday/Tuesday was a Steelers fan saying that Roethlisberger had a horrible game, but he didn't want to give credit to the Giants Defense. Seriously, win like a man, lose like a man. It's because injuries...it's because...

What matters is the record. So they've beaten bad teams? Then they've beaten teams they were supposed to beat. Enjoy it while it's there, who knows how long it will last. Well, coming into this year, New England had the EASIEST schedule. So clearly they should be running the table. Even the second half of last year, with the anti-Patriots sentiment, I would hear people say "Well they have Brady AND Moss. They SHOULD be doing that" or "It won't last". Why not say "Damn, they're pretty good" or "They've been really good so far."

And not disputing the above facts of their drives (not sure what weight they hold if not for that game), but if I get an INT and start at their 30, scoop up a fumble and run it in for a score, and get some other score, and I win 17-3, would people still say "Well, all their drives started in their opponent's side of the field." Because surely my defense wasn't out there preventing them from moving the ball.

[Evil Chase K]

My whole point was that their offense isn't as good as people say and that they can't score consistently without help from their defense/the opposing offense.

As for the Steelers game, the Giants defense played extremely well. But as has been the story all year the Steelers receivers outside of Heath Miller and Santonio Holmes failed to get separation and the worst offensive coordinator in the NFL Bruce Arians failed to adjust to the Giants defense until it was too late.

The fact is, the Giants defense played well but the Steelers could have, and arguably would have won had it not been for a freak injury. Anyone who says the Giants defense didn't do a good job is an idiot. But it was a game the Steelers could have/should have won.

[Plankton]

The Steelers are 20th in rushing because of Parker's injury. When he comes back their running game will be much more potent.

You can't just look at stats and say that it's the sole indicator of a team's abilities. Hell the Titans have one game with over 200 yards of rushing, the 332 yard game against that awful Chiefs defense.

Every team has injuries, and every team has to work around those injuries. You can't judge a team based on how good they would or should be doing. You have to base it on how they are doing. If Parker comes back and their rushing productivity increases, then it increases. I said earlier that the analysis of stats can be subjective, so it's fair for everyone to have their own spin on them. But you can't just take away an injury to say one team is better than the other. NFL teams aren't played with 100% of their roster healthy. A lot of times a team's greatness is defined by their ability to work around their injuries and weakness.

Even when Parker comes back, I'm not convinced their running game will be enormously improved. Parker has had a total of 66 attempts this season. Mewelde Moore has had 65. Their longest runs? Both have recorded 32 yards. Number of rushing TDs? Both have three (Parker only managed to score on the Texans, and Moore has an additional receiving TD). Total rushing yards: Parker has 263 and Moore has 322. Moore averages one yard more than Parker. Parker has started in three games (Texans, Browns, Eagles); Moore has started in three as well (Jaguars, Bengals, Giants), and had 8 attempts vs. the Ravens. Moore has started against the 7th best team in rush defense (NY Giants--he recorded 94 total yards). Parker started against the ninth (Philly--he had a total of 20 yards). All of the other teams ranked in the bottom half.

Like I said, stats are facts, their analysis is subjective. But I'm not sure if there's much there among the facts to support a claim that Parker is going to bail out that horrible o-line to raise them among the rushing elite with the Titans (or that they'd be much higher is he had played). You could easily say that Parker is great and he'll do amazing, but there's nothing there to back that claim up. I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong if Parker comes back and makes the running game competitive with the Titans', but for now, there's no evidence that their terrible o-line won't hold him back from doing so.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Plankton

[CQI13]

As for records, people say so and so has beaten teams with a combined record of 10-17 (or whatever it happens to be). But they don't say anything about what those teams were at the time this team played them. Obviously the first game can't be taken into consideration, since they would be 0-0 at the time.

[Evil Chase K]

The Steelers are 20th in rushing because of Parker's injury. When he comes back their running game will be much more potent.

You can't just look at stats and say that it's the sole indicator of a team's abilities. Hell the Titans have one game with over 200 yards of rushing, the 332 yard game against that awful Chiefs defense.

Every team has injuries, and every team has to work around those injuries. You can't judge a team based on how good they would or should be doing. You have to base it on how they are doing. If Parker comes back and their rushing productivity increases, then it increases. I said earlier that the analysis of stats can be subjective, so it's fair for everyone to have their own spin on them. But you can't just take away an injury to say one team is better than the other. NFL teams aren't played with 100% of their roster healthy. A lot of times a team's greatness is defined by their ability to work around their injuries and weakness.

Even when Parker comes back, I'm not convinced their running game will be enormously improved. Parker has had a total of 66 attempts this season. Mewelde Moore has had 65. Their longest runs? Both have recorded 32 yards. Number of rushing TDs? Both have three (Parker only managed to score on the Texans, and Moore has an additional receiving TD). Total rushing yards: Parker has 263 and Moore has 322. Moore averages one yard more than Parker. Parker has started in three games (Texans, Browns, Eagles); Moore has started in three as well (Jaguars, Bengals, Giants), and had 8 attempts vs. the Ravens. Moore has started against the 7th best team in rush defense (NY Giants--he recorded 94 total yards). Parker started against the ninth (Philly--he had a total of 20 yards). All of the other teams ranked in the bottom half.

Like I said, stats are facts, their analysis is subjective. But I'm not sure if there's much there among the facts to support a claim that Parker is going to bail out that horrible o-line to raise them among the rushing elite with the Titans (or that they'd be much higher is he had played). You could easily say that Parker is great and he'll do amazing, but there's nothing there to back that claim up. I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong if Parker comes back and makes the running game competitive with the Titans', but for now, there's no evidence that their terrible o-line won't hold him back from doing so.

Obviously, I watch Steeler games every week. The offensive line, from a run blocking standpoint, has drastically improved since Parker went down. Many times there were runs where Mewelde Moore had the outside edge but didn't have the speed to get more than 1 or 2 yards.

The loss of Kendall Simmons has actually been very good for the Steelers from a run blocking standpoint as Darnell Stapleton is a much better run blocker.

Though Mewelde Moore has been excellent this season he is not nearly as talented as Willie Parker and it's silly to think the Steelers offense won't improve with Willie in there.

[HailtotheYo]

My whole point was that their offense isn't as good as people say and that they can't score consistently without help from their defense/the opposing offense.

A) - is that not the definition of a team ? B) - The Ravens and Bucs have won Super Bowls within the last decade with littler more than their defense. You don't have to score consistantly, you just have to score enough to win. That's what they're doing. I don't remember the rule that says it's the offense that has to score the points. A good team does what it has to in order to win games. The Titans do that.

And I love it ..... the turnovers and miscues by the opposing offenses are help from them, rather than the Titan's D.

[Evil Chase K]

Of course that's the point of the game. But what the stuff I posted says to me is that if they play a team with an efficient offense that doesn't turn the ball over, they aren't a good enough team to compete offensively.

They aren't a team who can make their own breaks offensively. They don't have the weapons to win games on their own with their offense.

And as I've said time and time again, comparing this Titans defense to the Ravens Super Bowl defense is dumb. The Ravens defense was so far beyond this Titans defense it's not even funny. The Ravens defense had no give, they would smother you from the opening of the game until the end. This Titans defense is good, but it's not Ravens good. It's not even the best defense in the NFL THIS SEASON.