The 2008 NFL Thread

[phanan]

It is insane to think that the four teams getting picked to win the AFC all lost.

The Pats barely beat the Chiefs but it is pretty much a loss by losing Brady.

The Colts obviously.

The Jags looked terrible.

The Chargers lost late.


The AFC has become wide open.

The Colts clearly suffered from rust in Manning and Harrison but mainly the loss of Saturday. Their snaps are not sharp and their protection poor.

The loss of Brady is huge. Now we'll probably have to be hearing about Favre all year as the Jets win the division.

With the losses by the Chargers and Jags too it looks like no one wants to step up, but it's a long season and anything can happen.

I am going to predict that....San Diego disappoints this year.

I didn't think I would ever say this but the NFC might be a better conference than the AFC this year. :shocking:

This was just Week 1 everyone. To think a team like the Chargers or Colts aren't going to be as good just because they either got unlucky or were rusty is a bit early to assume.

The Colts will be fine. Sure, they were rusty, but they will be there at the end as long as they have Manning.

The Chargers actually played decent. They just got beat. Remember, they started off a bit slow last year, too. Yet they were still there at the end and playing well.

 

[phanan]

Sorry Phanan but I think they'd be lucky to win seven games. That defense is way too suspect. If KC wasn't so pitiful they could have scored a lot more points and ran away with that game.

It's just the first week of the season. Hard to make assumptions just after one game.

And the AFC East plays the NFC West this year, which is by far the worst division in the league.

 

[Hewson]

"Hello Daunte, it's Randy...about that retirement thing - how serious was that?"

Culpepper can't read a defense, no way Beilichick brings him in. Chris Simms maybe, or a return of Matt Gutierrez as 3rd QB.

The qusetion will be whether Brady gets put on IR or not.
If not and he can be back by December, Cassel and O'Connell (you heard it here first, he'll take the reigns by Halloween) can muster enough wins to get the Pats in position for a playoff spot, Brady plays the last 3-4 games, and then they're right where they planned to be except no home field.
If Brady goes on IR, its a 9-7 season and a first round playoff exit likely.

 

[Screwtape2]

The preseason does matter. But you don't need four games to figure out what you need to do.

And the preseason had nothing to do with Brady getting hurt.

I didn't say that the preseason had anything to do with Brady's injury. I'm just saying that the Pats weren't clicking and turned the ball over before he got hurt. What they should do is cut the roster down after the third game and have the starters play a half or three quarters in the fourth game. The Colts and Jags o-lines lost them their respective games. The premier defenses in the league for the most part weren't tight. You shouldn't see sloppy football across the league during week one. This is the time where you set the tone for the rest of the year.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I didn't think I would ever say this but the NFC might be a better conference than the AFC this year. :shocking:

the NFC and AFC split their regular season matchups last season, and if you hadn't heard, the NFC won the Super Bowl.

soooo i don't really know why this would be shocking.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i'm sorry... did the jets barely hold on to beat the miami dolphins, who were 1-15 last year and are run by the QB that the jets cut?

so how exactly does their performance make them the "favorites" to win the AFC East now? i'm trying to figure that out... seems to me that Buffalo was much more impressive. ahh right.. buffalo doesn't have 92 year old brett favruh, so the media isn't in love with them... yet.

 

[Screwtape2]

the NFC and AFC split their regular season matchups last season, and if you hadn't heard, the NFC won the Super Bowl.

soooo i don't really know why this would be shocking.

Last season the AFC had an 18-1 team. The Colts and Pats last year didn't lose any regular season games against the NFC. The Chargers were a Super Bowl favorite coming into this year. That's why it is a little shocking.

 

[speedracer]

Sorry Phanan but I think they'd be lucky to win seven games. That defense is way too suspect. If KC wasn't so pitiful they could have scored a lot more points and ran away with that game.

The thing is, KC is that pitiful. As are a bunch of other teams on New England's schedule.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Last season the AFC had an 18-1 team. The Colts and Pats last year didn't lose any regular season games against the NFC. The Chargers were a Super Bowl favorite coming into this year. That's why it is a little shocking.

the NFC & AFC were 32-32 last year. super bowl was won by the NFC.

perhaps the AFC was a little over-rated due to being top heavy, where as the NFC is much more balanced, making it harder to have better records.

just maybe.

tough to argue against that... considering the records and the result of the super bowl.

 

[Screwtape2]

The thing is, KC is that pitiful. As are a bunch of other teams on New England's schedule.

Looking at thier schedule I see eleven losses.

 

[Hewson]

Looking at thier schedule I see eleven losses.

Enlighten us...I see maybe 7.

 

[Hewson]

Enlighten us...I see maybe 7.

YouTube - Classic Movie Line #51

 

[Screwtape2]

the NFC & AFC were 32-32 last year. super bowl was won by the NFC.

perhaps the AFC was a little over-rated due to being top heavy, where as the NFC is much more balanced, making it harder to have better records.

just maybe.

tough to argue against that... considering the records and the result of the super bowl.

The AFC had seven double digit win teams compared to four in the NFC. The weakest AFC division had more total wins than the NFC's weakest division. The AFC had two teams that went undefeated in non-conference play compared to one in the NFC. Clearly the AFC was superior.

 

[Screwtape2]

Enlighten us...I see maybe 7.

NYJ x2
Buffalo x2
SD
Denver
IND
PIT
SEA
OAK
ARI

 

[speedracer]

OAK
ARI

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The AFC had seven double digit win teams compared to four in the NFC. The weakest AFC division had more total wins than the NFC's weakest division. The AFC had two teams that went undefeated in non-conference play compared to one in the NFC. Clearly the AFC was superior.

.500 record, nfc won the super bowl. clearly i do not see how you can say they were clearly superior.

don't you think it's entirely possible that the AFC was top heavy? while the NFC was much more balanced, had much more parity, thus why the records were not as good? that's not possible in your mind? despite a .500 record between the two conferences and a wild card NFC team winning the super bowl over the undefeated AFC team, that thought can't even enter your head?

if so, no wonder why you're shocked.

even if you want to argue that the AFC was better last year, which i may be inclined to agree, anyone can see that the NFC was CLEARLY closing the gap, and closing it quickly, thus the idea that the NFC could be better this year should CLEARLY not be shocking to anyone.

 

[Screwtape2]

even if you want to argue that the AFC was better last year, which i may be inclined to agree, anyone can see that the NFC was CLEARLY closing the gap, and closing it quickly, thus the idea that the NFC could be better this year should CLEARLY not be shocking to anyone.

To me it isn't simply that the NFC closed the gap but there may be a complete role reversal. In the playoffs, the Giants had too much heart and will to be stopped. I think that at that point in the season the Pats, Chargers, Colts, Steelers and Jaguars could all have beaten the other five NFC playoff teams. This year I may say the same about the NFC. For things to swing like that so fast is what really shocks me. I also suspect the NFC will have the better record when playing the AFC.

 

[Hewson]

NYJ x2
Buffalo x2
SD
Denver
IND
PIT
SEA
OAK
ARI

I'll give you 1 eack for The Favres and Beefalo.
SD, Indy, Seattle all being road games are certainly potential losses.
Pitt maybe.
Thats 6.
That gives me margin for error at 7.

 

[Screwtape2]

I'll give you 1 eack for The Favres and Beefalo.
SD, Indy, Seattle all being road games are certainly potential losses.
Pitt maybe.
Thats 6.
That gives me margin for error at 7.

If Tom Brady is so good, why would the team still make the playoffs without him?

 

[Hewson]

If Tom Brady is so good, why would the team still make the playoffs without him?

I'm saying they go 9-7 without him.
With him I figure them at 14-2 and a Super Bowl appearance, probable victory...so you don't think there's a value drop off there?

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

 

[CTU2fan]

the NFC won the Super Bowl.

super bowl was won by the NFC.

the result of the super bowl.

nfc won the super bowl.

a wild card NFC team winning the super bowl over the undefeated AFC team

Now ain't the time to go bringing up the SUPERBOWL there bucko

But seriously, I think you could make the case that the AFC was a bit top-heavy and that there's more parity in the NFC. I think most would agree that the Pats (Superbowl notwithstanding), Colts, Chargers, and maybe the Jags were stronger than the NFC's top teams last year, while the NFC was maybe a little deeper in terms of quality teams. The question is, are you AFC bottom-feeders actually worse than their NFC counterparts? And whether they are or not, you could still argue that the AFC is the better conference based on the strength of its elite teams.

I'd take the conference with more/better elite teams, which IMO is still the AFC...but I think the NFC is closing the gap. It goes in cycles; the NFC was dominant for years until the Broncos won their 2 SB's...and the Ravens, Pats, and Colts kept it going.

 

[phanan]

If Tom Brady is so good, why would the team still make the playoffs without him?

As Hewson already stated, we're talking about a signficant dropoff here without Brady. That's without question.

But they still have good players, and combined with a weak schedule, a 9 or 10 win season is certainly not out of the question, and may be good enough for playoffs, although they'd most likely get knocked out right away.

 

[Screwtape2]

I'm saying they go 9-7 without him.
With him I figure them at 14-2 and a Super Bowl appearance, probable victory...so you don't think there's a value drop off there?

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

If you are one of the best quarterbacks ever, I don't see how without you a team can still make the playoffs. I do think Brady is one of the best ever which is why I think this team will lose so much. Brady, like Manning was doing a few years ago, covers for a weak defense by destroying teams on offense. They lose that with him gone.

 

[Hewson]

Brady, like Manning was doing a few years ago, covers for a weak defense by destroying teams on offense. They lose that with him gone.

The Pats' defense was 4th in the NFL last year in points allowed...thats considered "weak" in your world?

 

[Screwtape2]

The Pats' defense was 4th in the NFL last year in points allowed...thats considered "weak" in your world?

The stats don't really reflect the defense as most teams had to come from behind thanks to Brady and his receivers. Which is my point. This is a defense that let the Giants score two touchdowns on thier final two drives to win the Super Bowl. They also let the Chiefs drive down the field to be in position to tie the game yesterday. This defense will lose games for this team.

 

[No spoken words]

Screw, that's a weak argument. If their defense was bad, then the teams trying to make comebacks against them would.....make comebacks against them. Take a peek at the 2000 Rams, or, the Chargers of the 1980's. Great offenses, horrid defenses. Just because your offense is a juggernaut does not mean that teams cannot march right back down the field on you. You do not go undefeated in the regular season with a weak defense, you ought to know this, I'm not sure why this is even being discussed.

I have no idea how the Pats will do sans Brady. I suspect 8-8, but, 6-10, nor 10-6 would shock me.

 

[Hewson]

The stats don't really reflect the defense as most teams had to come from behind thanks to Brady and his receivers. Which is my point. This is a defense that let the Giants score two touchdowns on thier final two drives to win the Super Bowl. They also let the Chiefs drive down the field to be in position to tie the game yesterday. This defense will lose games for this team.

And the net result was they allowed 10 points to the Chefs yesterday.
They allowed 17 to the GMen in the Super Bowl.
Weak defenses give up 28-35 ppg.

 

[Screwtape2]

Screw, that's a weak argument. If their defense was bad, then the teams trying to make comebacks against them would.....make comebacks against them. Take a peek at the 2000 Rams, or, the Chargers of the 1980's. Great offenses, horrid defenses. Just because your offense is a juggernaut does not mean that teams cannot march right back down the field on you. You do not go undefeated in the regular season with a weak defense, you ought to know this, I'm not sure why this is even being discussed.

I have no idea how the Pats will do sans Brady. I suspect 8-8, but, 6-10, nor 10-6 would shock me.

When you are behind by a lot, a defense can defend against the big play the rest of the game. They'll give you short stuff. Most teams don't have the focus to take the short routes and move the ball down the field. The Mannings do. If the Colts receivers minus Harrison would have caught the balls they dropped, the Colts would have blown the Pats out. When Eli got his shot in week 17 and the Super Bowl, he was very effective against them. It was the fear that Brady could blow open the game that hurt opposing offenses. The Pats D is weak.

 

[CTU2fan]

What this does do, obviously, is put the Pats' margin for error at its lowest. In the past Tom Brady and the passing attack could cover for various injuries on defense and to the running backs. IF they can stay relatively healthy the Patriots should have enough on defense and enough of a running game to still be a very good team; they could be 11-5 with Cassel (or Simms, or Rattay, whoever) if the rest of the team stays on the field and productive. Problem is I don't think you can count on Maroney (or Morris) to stay healthy all year, and there's still a lot of age on defense.

It's sort of funny that we've heard for years how Tom Brady is overrated, that he's a system QB and not nearly as good as the NFL's elite QB's (cought Peyton cough), yet the Pats are doomed without him. Conversely you've got folks who kiss the ground Tom walks on (yeah I'm a Brady fanboy, guilty) who'll tell you that the Pats can still win without him. I guess now we'll find out.

 

[No spoken words]

.