National Football League - Page 141 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1401  
Old 06-13-12, 18:54
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,905
Default

Bleacher Report posted the latest power rankings (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...agency-is-over):
32. Vikes
31. Colts
30. Fins
29. Browns
28. Cards
27. Jags
26. Rams
25. Titans
24. Raiders
23. Skins
22. Bucs
21. Chargers
20. Hawks
19. Bills
18. Falcons
17. Chiefs
16. Raves
15. Panthers
14. Jets
13. Broncos
12. Bengals
11. Bears
10. Boys
9. Lions
8. Texans
7. Saints
6. Niners
5. Steelers
4. Giants
3. Packers
2. Eagles
1. Pats
Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 06-14-12, 22:57
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,864
Default

No disagreement on many teams, and I can see why the Pats are on the top of the list. I mean, had Welker caught the ball...

Here are teams I think are too high or too low:

2. Eagles - Too high. I don't have that much faith in Vick. I'd rank them about 10. They should win the NFC East, maybe.

4. NYG - Too high. Around 12 I'd say.

7. Saints - Wow. Could belong around 4, could belong at 17. Will be an interesting season, that's for sure.

Jets, Panthers, Raiders all ranked too high.

Ravens (despite losing players), Cardinals, Chiefs too low.

11. Bears - A bit low. Should be around 9. I really like their depth and what they did in the off season, as noted in the article.

13. Denver - Too low. Belong around 10. But Manning is a question mark, no?
Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 06-14-12, 23:16
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,403
Default

As a mere amateur, I find that ranking list both bizarre and incomprehensible.

Blissful as I am in my ignorance of the intricacies of statto world, I will continue to cling to the dream that RG3 will lead the Skins out of the wilderness this season. I don't actually expect to make it all the way to the promised land, but it would already be a huge bonus if we stopped being the NFC East whipping boys and laughing stock.

I'm kind of thinking 'surprise' like the Nats are continuing to surprise all the pundits this season. Absolutely no one saw this Nats season coming. I apologize for even mentioning the 'other' sport in this hallowed topic.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 06-15-12, 06:01
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,905
Default

@Amsterhammer: in regard to , if you are referring to why I started at #32 is because it was a countdown from worst to best... like the Bleacher Report article.

@Alpe: I agree with most of your tweaks, or at least in general. Here's my spin:
My
Pick........Change......Comments

1...Pack... 2 ...Lost at the wrong time
2...Pats... -1 ...Should not have made the SB
3...No-Saints.. 4 ...Not enough credit
4...Niners ... 2 ...Tough D and good all around. QB?
5...Steelers... 0
6...Giants... -2 ...Still have the best clutch QB in Eli
7...d'Lions... 2 ...positions 7-12 really up for grabs
8...Texans... 0
9...da Bears... 2 ...Cutler improving
10...Raves... 6 ...Is it Flacco or Flake-o. Still a good bunch
11...Broncos... 2 ...Won't take long to see if #11 is too low
12...Falcons... 6
13...Bengals... -1
14...Eagles... -12 ...head cases
15...Redskins... 8 ...ROY to the rescue
16...Panthers... -1
17...C-Boys... -7 ...I'm not sold on them at all (R-o-m-o)
18...Chiefs... -1
19...B-Bills... 0
20...Hawks... 0 ...too many new faces, not enough time
21...Bucs... 1 ...could be scary with off season pick-ups
22...Bolts... -1
23...Jets... -9 ...major head case Holmes
24...Colts... 7 ...may be bit too high? May need bit more luck
25...Titans... 0
26...Cards... 2
27...J-Jags... 0
28...Browns... 1 ...could grade out better depending
29...Rams... -3
30...Fins... 0
31...Raid?rs... -7 ...Why replace the coach? Young Davis ASO'd it.
32...Vikes... 0

that was one interesting Pats tactic near the end of regulation time in the SB. Pats did not want to play D so the Giants could not run down the clock, and then give the Brady Bunch another shot at it.

Last edited by on3m@n@rmy; 06-15-12 at 06:29.
Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 06-15-12, 10:08
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by on3m@n@rmy View Post
@Amsterhammer: in regard to , if you are referring to why I started at #32 is because it was a countdown from worst to best... like the Bleacher Report article.
No 3man, I understood why the list looked as it did, I just found some of the placings incomprehensible. Your changes make more sense!

I found the following little piece from the Washington Post mildly amusing.

Quote:
Can the Redskins win the NFC East? Hell if I know. I mean, they haven’t done it much lately, nor have they won a heck of a lot of games in recent seasons. They have a rookie quarterback who’s never thrown a real pass, who will be relying on a couple receivers who have never worn a Redskins uniform in a real game.

On the other hand, strange things happen every NFL season. Plus, it’s mid-June. Space goblins could capture Michael Vick, Eli Manning and Tony Romo next month and replace them with pickled turnips. (Yes, it’s possible a pickled turnip would be more clutch than Romo, but that’s a different argument.)

In other words, can the Redskins win the NFC East? There are only two real answers: “I mean, I guess so,” or “That’s a clown question, bro.”

But it’s June, and the NFL Network needs content, so they asked Warren Sapp and Heath Evans if the Redskins could win the NFC East.

“Oh, they will definitely compete, but they will not contend, not at all,” Sapp said, in much the same way you might tell your kid that he can definitely have dessert, but he can’t have anything to eat after dinner, not at all.

“They’ll compete, but they won’t contend,” Sapp later said, in case you missed it.

And believe it or not, he made a better case than Evans.

“I say not a chance, and here’s why,” Evans said. “When you’re talking about Mike Shanahan as a head coach, here’s what you’ve got. As a head coach, two Super Bowl wins. As an offensive coordinator, ’94 with the Niners, another Super Bowl. These coaches get stuck in their ways. They want to do things their way.”

(And thus, the proof of Shanahan’s deficiencies is the fact that he’s won three Super Bowls.)

“When you look at the success that other young quarterbacks have had — look at Tebow last year, look at Cam Newton — their offensive coordinators made them comfortable,” Evans went on. “My time with Tom Brady, my time with Drew Brees, Sean Payton and Bill Belichick, what do you like, what don’t you like? What do you want to do and won’t don’t you want to do? That is huge.

“And so when you talk about the comfortability [sic] factor for a young quarterback, this offense, the way Mike Shanahan is coaching offense, it’s not gonna be conducive to RGIII being comfortable down-in and down-out,” Evans decided, based apparently on the ratio of the temperature in Topeka to the weight of the strawberry-rhubarb pies at a supermarket in Fort Wayne.

“Cam Newton, Tim Tebow. These guys got comfortable. And then if you look at the NFC East,” he went on, “think about the pass rushers this young man’s gonna be facing. Every team in that division has two guys he’s gonna be running from his life (sic). Maybe three....This is a tough, tough division.”

And so there you go. Not a chance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...HCdV_blog.html
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 06-15-12, 12:33
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,905
Default

Gotcha. Well, I think Sapp has the right idea. They will definately be competitive... especailly against the Eagles and Boys. I actually look for them to do better than the Boys. But I think the Giants will take the NFC East. Sapp may think the Boys will take the East. But whoever ends up taking the East is probobaly who Sapp thinks the Skins cannot contend with. I actually do not prefer words like compete and contend because they can kind of overlap, or are a bit vague. I prefer an order of who's going to finish 1-2-3-4. And then discuss from that point of view. In the NFC East, my ranking has the Eagles, Skins, and Boys so close together that during the season anything could happen... just like last year the Boys had the inside track to win the division but choked and the Giants just made a strong run at the end.

edit: p.s. - Unlike Foxxy, who probably would study last year's stats before making a ranking, I did mine more by gut feeling.

Last edited by on3m@n@rmy; 06-15-12 at 12:37.
Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 06-15-12, 22:13
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,864
Default

Good list Onmy3m. I agree more with you than BR's expert.

Love that other article. That was great. The reality is, we don't know. It's often easy to look at the creme of the crop and pick general winners, and teams that will stink. But to look at the big fat middle and say things like "Andy Dalton will lead the Bengals into the playoffs..." if you had said that last year at this time, people would have laughed at you. So maybe RG3 can do that in DC?

As to the Nats and MLB, there were several people who did say they would contend, because they have a terrific pitching staff. Will they be there in September? Who knows. Philly can't play this bad, but with so many injuries...
Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 06-18-12, 12:39
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,905
Default

Well, thankaveramuch.

Will the Browns move McCoy or Wallace? Earliest rumors were that McCoy's time is getting short and that the Browns are shopping McCoy around. Not sure if it was ESPN or Bleacher that named some teams they felt would be a good fit for McCoy, and the 3 teams they named all had solid starters at the QB position... the Packers was one of the teams, but I forgot the other two. The Giants may have been one of the others. Anyway, one Bleacher analyst seems to think the Browns should move Wallace, not McCoy. And I think she's right. The Browns will not get much in return for McCoy, and I don't think McCoy is starting material just yet. He would be much better off at a team with an established solid veteran like backup to Rogers in Green Bay. However, the Browns are never going to use Wallace. At least not enough to justify keeping him. The question is, if both Wallace and McCoy were backups on the Browns who would they start if Weeden goes down with injury? I'd guess McCoy. If the Browns end up moving McCoy it could be more a matter of cap space than anything else.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...not-colt-mccoy
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 06-22-12, 18:03
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,864
Default

Just wanted to give thanks that the Godawful NBA season is finally over. Even with it's lockout, the thing went on forever and ever. Now airwaves and web bandwidth can stop being wasted so the world can concentrate on meaningful sports. And just in time for the most meaningful sport of all that starts in just six short weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 06-23-12, 17:24
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,905
Default

Not to mention the Olympics and Tour that start in a few weeks.

In hindsight, to me, this past NBA season was a failure in one way. I've often said the NBA gets lackluster play out of many players throughout the early to middle part of the regular season because they play too many games and fatigue is a factor. Only near the end of the season do we see real passion by players of teams who are in contention. The disappointment to me is the shortened season did nothing to correct that. Once the shortened season started they played the same number of games per week and got the same lackluster play. The only way to correct that is to reduce the number of games per week. But I'd be a fool to think that will happen anytime soon because that would mean the league and teams would face reduced revenues. And they, particularly David Stern and the owners, are not going to accept that. The league and Stern have to come to grips with whether or not they want full season fans, or are just happy with playoff fans. Right now, I am just a playoff fan, and a poor one at that if measured by time watching games. I am a complete non-fan when it comes to the regular season. If increasing fan base is important to Stern & Co., then maybe a reduction in the number of games played per week could happen. But I'm not holding my breath.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.