National Football League

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Four potentially close games.

Carolina at Atl
Buf at NYG
SF at Detroit
Phi at Wash

The rest should be obvious.
I wouldn't count out the Houston-Ravens game as a close one.
 
Amsterhammer said:
It would be a bizar round indeed if every home team bar one was to win. On the other hand, I can't really disagree with your selections. I suppose it's even conceivable that the Giants could turn over the Bills so that every home team wins! Wonder if that's ever happened?

edit - it's late - that's my excuse for overlooking the Saints, which makes the rest of what I wrote nonsense.

Never mind....
Well, the Bucs have it in them to pull off an upset, but that's what it would be ...an upset. So if the Bucs were able to pull off the upset and the
Giants defeat the Bills, then what you suggest is not impossible. Interesting question actually. FoxyBrown, who has not been around the forum lately, or Alpe the media guru might have an idea off the top of their heads tho. All I know is Bing and the Great Wiki don't know. :D
 
Thoughtforfood said:
NFL WEEK 6 PREDICTIONS:
SUNDAY:
5. SF at DET. SF wins in a close one.
.
If SF wins it will be close, but what a crowd silencer that would be! HOWEVER, the niners are going to need to run the ball to win this one and the Lions will have nothing doing. I do think it could be close though.
 
TB was run over by the 49ers, their defensive backfield was shredded. I see no reason why Drew Brees and NO, whose only lose was a close game to the mighty Packers, won't do similar. TB should score more than the FG they were able to muster against SF.
 
I was wrong on not only that, but all four of my "close games". :eek:

This is really showing you what kind of league we're looking at. Not that the Rams could beat the Packers, but the vast majority of games in the NFL are close, with a potential winner either way.

That 49ers-Lions game was something to see. San Francisco looks very impressive right about now. And who would have thought a year ago that these two teams would be powerhouses this season?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Panthers looked like absolute **** today. Our defense cannot stop anyone, and Cam hasn't showed the killer instinct to get it done when the game is on the line. He may well learn it, but he looks to be getting frustrated. He needs to realize that there is a reason we were able to pick him first, and that reason wasn't cured by drafting him. In fact, on defense, we are so banged up that I don't things are going to get better any time soon in terms of win. We might not have the first pick next year, but we will draft pretty high again.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I was wrong on not only that, but all four of my "close games". :eek:

This is really showing you what kind of league we're looking at. Not that the Rams could beat the Packers, but the vast majority of games in the NFL are close, with a potential winner either way.

That 49ers-Lions game was something to see. San Francisco looks very impressive right about now. And who would have thought a year ago that these two teams would be powerhouses this season?
I was just picking on you because you made a comment about the bucs secondary, and they came up with three interceptions :D. I haven't even checked my picks to the scores yet.

I agree with what you're saying, and two teams everyone expected to dominate have been underachieving: falcons and eagles.

With the way the season has played out so far, the playoff stretch will be real interesting, especially if those teams start getting it together.

Thoughtforfood said:
The Panthers looked like absolute **** today. Our defense cannot stop anyone, and Cam hasn't showed the killer instinct to get it done when the game is on the line. He may well learn it, but he looks to be getting frustrated. He needs to realize that there is a reason we were able to pick him first, and that reason wasn't cured by drafting him. In fact, on defense, we are so banged up that I don't things are going to get better any time soon in terms of win. We might not have the first pick next year, but we will draft pretty high again.
I don't think they looked that bad until the second half, granted that's when it matters, but they were playing pretty well for a while. The difference was that interception in the endzone, and that's not entirely on Cam. Most QBs would have made that throw.
 
Mar 14, 2010
268
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I was wrong on not only that, but all four of my "close games". :eek:

This is really showing you what kind of league we're looking at. Not that the Rams could beat the Packers, but the vast majority of games in the NFL are close, with a potential winner either way.

That 49ers-Lions game was something to see. San Francisco looks very impressive right about now. And who would have thought a year ago that these two teams would be powerhouses this season?
As a die hard 49er fangirl, I knew they were piling up young players. I knew they always had a couple good linebackers, Willis has always been a beast. I will admit that I have not been an Alex Smith fan. Ready to get rid of him a couple years ago. The difference has to be the coach! That is sad for me as I like the idea of Mike Singletary as a coach. I guess the idea and the actual coach never got the players to live up to their potential.

Didn't really follow the Lions, knew they always seemed to have a bad break with injuries last year. Always rooted for them on Thanksgiving day game.

I find it funny that the TV networks have built their schedules based on how teams played last year or were expected to do this year. Thus those of us who don't a team and get the national feed are often stuck not getting the best game. I am glad we got the Niners/Lions game on Fox.

I am mad because I was in Vegas before the season began and I wanted to go to the sports book and bet the Niners to win the west...but never made it over to the sports book...now mad at my lack of follow thru.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
This is really showing you what kind of league we're looking at. Not that the Rams could beat the Packers, but the vast majority of games in the NFL are close, with a potential winner either way.
As for predictions, I also muffed several predicts because of upsets, or I just got it wrong. Still I ended up 8-4 through Sunday night, and feel lucky with that. Here's why...
Throw out the maulings by the Packers (21 piont victors over StL) and Bears (29 points over the Vikes) and the average points-per-game margin of victory for all remaining games was just 7.6 points... and that includes the 2 score victories by the Falcons (14 over CAR), Bengals (10 over IND), and Raves (15 over HOU). Then throwing out the margins of victory by the Falcons, Bengals, and Raves the average PPG difference is a meager 5.3 points. Here's a list of those close games and the margins of victory in each (winning team in bold):
GAME...............SCORE........POINT DIFF
JAC at PIT........17-13.............4
BUF at NYG.....27-24.............3
SF at DET.........25-19............6
PHI at WAS.......20-13............7
CLE at OAK......24-17............7
NO at TB..........26-20.............6
DAL at NE.........20-16............4

My loser picks: I took BUF, DET, WAS, and NO. I could have easily missed out on 3 other predictions and my pick success would start looking like Mortensen's record, or Liggett's Tour stage winner pick success ratio.

Overall, I'd say this was an entertaining weekend for games.
 
Actually, two more teams a lot of people expected to do well are underachieving are the NY Jets, expected to contend with the Patriots, and the Arizona Cardinals expected to fight it out with the 49ers and Rams - both expected to finish maybe 9-7. Did you think the Rams would be 0-5 now? That Seattle, with a rag tag group of leftover players would be 2-3?

Many thought the KC Chiefs, who are 2-3 would be in first (again) and about 4-1. They were twice blown out.

And who thought the Bengals would be 4-2? Without Carson Palmer?
 
Yeah, I agree in general. In the NFC West the Rams, Cards, and c-Hawks have surprised. I'm not too surprised about SF tho. But in that conference I'm mostly surprised at the winless Rams and 2-win Hawks (who I thought could maybe earn a goose egg in the win column for the season).

I didn't and still don't think KC can be a serious challenger yet.

But the Bengals are a bit of a surprise. It makes one wonder how much of a distraction Palmer was in the locker room and to the organization. The Eagles seemed, a week ago, to be suffering from too many stars in the locker room not taking the blame for their poor start. The Eagles kind of let their head coach take the heat while saying they were "behind their coach". But they never really came out taking any of the blame themselves. If that was a problem, maybe this week's win is a sign they have corrected that.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
The Eagles kind of let their head coach take the heat while saying they were "behind their coach". But they never really came out taking any of the blame themselves. If that was a problem, maybe this week's win is a sign they have corrected that.
I was unable to find a decent working stream, so I didn't actually see the game, but I would guess that this Eagles win has everything to do with Grossman throwing four picks! We 'won' the second half 10-0 once he went off.:rolleyes:

I had the 49ers-Lions game live and thoroughly enjoyed that, though I thought that the final margin was slightly flattering. Saw part of the Ravens game online before bed - what would they do without Ray Rice??:p
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Actually, two more teams a lot of people expected to do well are underachieving are the NY Jets, expected to contend with the Patriots, and the Arizona Cardinals expected to fight it out with the 49ers and Rams - both expected to finish maybe 9-7. Did you think the Rams would be 0-5 now? That Seattle, with a rag tag group of leftover players would be 2-3?

Many thought the KC Chiefs, who are 2-3 would be in first (again) and about 4-1. They were twice blown out.

And who thought the Bengals would be 4-2? Without Carson Palmer?
I expected the Cards to struggle, other than Fitz, that team doesn't have much going for them anymore. The rams I expected to be a bit better, but they've had a failry difficult schedule so far. I'm not sure what the rest of their schedule is like; if it's a bit easier, they might get it together. The Jets are who I thought they were :p. Rex Ryan does a lot of talking which adds to their hype. I'm surprised with Indy though; even without Manning, I would have given them a couple wins by now. Part of me is even suprised the Vikes suck as bad as they do. I didn't expect them to be a playoff team, but at least .500.
 
Palmer probably was an issue in the locker room to some degree, and has just been traded to the one team where he really could flourish - Oakland, two top draft picks in return. With Campbell now out for the season, I expect Palmer to play some this Sunday, and start in three weeks (bye week between), and if he can meld with the receivers, and not force things, he could do very, very well there. Better than Campbell, who is trade bait now. Michael Silver of Yahoo questions giving up the draft picks, but Kurt Warner says it's an excellent move by the Raiders, and Bengals too. Both think Palmer could flourish in Oakland and has several good years left, and I agree.

While Grossman finally had the game many expected of him in helping the Skins lose, the Eagles did play mistake-free ball, which was a big key.

Going into the weekend the Bengals had the top ranked defense. But they are still #3 now, only behind Pittsburgh and Baltimore in that tough AFC North division. The last place Browns are 7th.

Nice to see the Jets get a win and play their kind of ball.
 
Mar 14, 2010
268
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
NFL Power Rankings - 10/18

1. Packers
2. Patriots
3. Ravens
4. Saints
5. 49ers
6. Lions
7. Chargers
8. Bills
9. Raiders
10. Steelers

Looks about right to me.
The only one I had a question about were the Saints. As much as I like them, pretty scattered on offense. Defense is pretty weak. Barely beat the Panthers and lost to Tampa.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
NFL Power Rankings - 10/18

1. Packers
2. Patriots
3. Ravens
4. Saints
5. 49ers
6. Lions
7. Chargers
8. Bills
9. Raiders
10. Steelers

Looks about right to me.
Me too. Sort of confirms what I thought about the NFC, that the Pack is a cut above the rest. But it's still early enough that a lot can happen by the playoffs with injuries and so on. The AFC on the other hand looks like it is shaping up to be a real dog fight.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
NFL Power Rankings - 10/18

1. Packers
2. Patriots
3. Ravens
4. Saints
5. 49ers
6. Lions
7. Chargers
8. Bills
9. Raiders
10. Steelers

Looks about right to me.
Power rankings bother me. How can the Saints be number four when both the 49ers and Lions have better records and better wins? The Bucs just beat them (but are ranked lower :rolleyes:), and the two losses the Bucs have are ranked lower than the Saints. All they do is reflect bias. No way are the Saints currently the fourth best team in the NFL; they're not even fourth best in the NFC. They barely got out of Carolina with a W and then followed up with a loss against a less than complete Buccaneers team (which I found much satisfaction in). How are the Bucs not even on this? The Raiders at number 9? HA! Bills at number 8 coming off a loss to New York? Chargers at 7? I guess wins against the Dolphins, Vikings, Broncos, and Chiefs count for a lot :rolleyes:

More accurate Power Rankings:
1) The Pack
2) Ravens
3) Patriots
4) Niners
5) Lions
6) Buccaneers
7) Steelers
8) Saints
9) Giants
10) Bills

EDIT: @Alpe, I know you didn't write those rankings. I hope my initial comments didn't sound like an attack on you.
 
I would not disagree with Immaculate's re-rankings either. OFC anyone in the top ten could beat any of the others on any given day. I like to look at the offensive and defensive stats. Doing that and you can make cases to move teams up and down in the power rankings. Just look whose at the bottom of the total defensive stats... that's how important Brady and the NE offense is, if the game is close at the end, on who's likely to win.

TOTAL OFFENSE:
1 New England...2847
2 New Orleans...2713
3 Philadelphia...2650
4 Green Bay.....2542
5 Carolina........2509
6 Houston........2286
7 Buffalo..........2271
8 Pittsburgh......2238
9 Oakland........2237
10 NY Giants....2210
11 Detroit..........2208
12 Tampa Bay...2103

TOTAL DEFENSE:
1 Baltimore.......1431
2 San Diego......1466
3 Dallas...........1538
4 Washington...1608
5 Cleveland......1609
6 Pittsburgh......1623
7 Tennessee.....1630
8 Cincinnati......1671
9 Seattle..........1830
10 Kansas City...1846
11 Arizona.........1885
12 Denver.........1929
13 Jacksonville...1952
14 Miami............1954
15 Houston........1972
16 NY Jets.........1997
17 Detroit...........2010
18 San Fran........2014
19 St. Louis........2017
20 Philadelphia....2047
21 Minnesota.......2118
22 Carolina..........2156
23 New Orleans...2193
24 NY Giants......2241
25 Atlanta..........2285
26 Green Bay.....2302
27 Tampa Bay....2343
28 Indianapolis...2355
29 Oakland.........2380
30 Chicago.........2384
31 Buffalo..........2523
32 New England...2542
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
No problem. It's all perception, opinion.
It is. I honestly think I look at them each week just to disagree :eek:

on3m@n@rmy said:
I would not disagree with Immaculate's re-rankings either. OFC anyone in the top ten could beat any of the others on any given day. I like to look at the offensive and defensive stats. Doing that and you can make cases to move teams up and down in the power rankings. Just look whose at the bottom of the total defensive stats... that's how important Brady and the NE offense is, if the game is close at the end, on who's likely to win.
True. When I rank teams, I always consider strength of schedule and quality of wins to settle equal records. For example, the chargers to me, shouldn't be ranked in the top 10 (top 15 for sure). They have an excellent record but haven't beat anyone significant yet, and some of those games they are barely winning. They are worth keeping an eye on though. Something else to consider, the Packers haven't played a top 10 defense yet. It's possible they're not as good as everyone thinks.
 
Mar 13, 2009
1,063
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
I was unable to find a decent working stream, so I didn't actually see the game, but I would guess that this Eagles win has everything to do with Grossman throwing four picks! We 'won' the second half 10-0 once he went off.:rolleyes:

I had the 49ers-Lions game live and thoroughly enjoyed that, though I thought that the final margin was slightly flattering. Saw part of the Ravens game online before bed - what would they do without Ray Rice??:p
Exactly. I could be the biggest Raven's fan on the forum, but Flacco frightens me week in and week out, and I have only slightly more confidence in him as I had in Kyle Boller :eek:. Thank god the only team with a better record in the AFC than Baltimore also has the worst pass defense in the league.
 
In that regard the Jets, Cowboys and Steelers could be higher, looking at schedule. I also think the Ravens are likely to end up with HFA if you look at their schedule. They have like maybe 3 potentially tough games left, and could end up 14-2 if the cards fell right. The 49ers similar being in that weak NFC West. But if that happens that shouldn't make them #1 in power rankings. Last year the 10-6 Packers barely made the playoffs, but had no problem wiping out the 13-3 Falcons, in Atlanta.

When I was ranking team defense earlier I went by points. But yards is probably a better indicator, and I believe what the NFL uses.

As to the Chargers, I do agree that the Chargers at this point have had such a soft schedule, it's hard to speculate. They also currently have the #1 ranked defense, and not a single player on their injury report (now that Bob Sanders is done). But they go to New York next week, which should be a test. They play Oakland, Buffalo and Baltimore late in the season. So we'll find out how good they really are.

Redskins say John Beck will now start over the turnover machine, Rex Grossman. No shock after last week's horrible performance against the Eagles.

Raiders say Carson Palmer will play this Sunday. They haven't said he'd start yet, and I doubt he will. I think this is a smart move. Get him into a game, even garbage time. Let him get some rust off, get hit once or twice. Then they have a bye week where he can prep for starting. He seems highly motivated, so that's good. It all depends if we see the 2007-2008 Palmer, or the 2010-2011 Palmer though. The former could lead them to the AFC title game. The latter....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY