Jags and Raiders then.Alpe d'Huez said:Nice post Hitch, I agree with all you wrote.
Since Seattle is an "easy" pick, I'll then use my alternate Superbowl prediction:
New Orleans over Indianapolis.
Glenn - Elimination Football is easy and works like this: After each week you pick two teams who you think will not get to the Superbowl and they are "eliminated" from your pool of teams that might win. In weeks 16 and 17 you only have to eliminate 1 team. Thus, at the end of the regular season you are left with the two teams you think will make it to the Superbowl.
No. I consider it a lost bet so the money is no longer mine so its hadFoxxyBrown1111 said:So you got the money back
I didn´t listen early, so I missed the point. Once you pick a team to lose, you can´t pick that team again...Pricey_sky said:So from what I've gathered 'Elimination' game doesn't start until after week 1, 'Survival' starts with us choosing a loser from week 1?
If that's the case in my survival I will choose Buffalo losing to Chicago.
I've not been a fan of NFL for long, but there aren't many teams that go 16-0 are there?FoxxyBrown1111 said:I didn´t listen early, so I missed the point. Once you pick a team to lose, you can´t pick that team again...
Basically that means which team in the first week is a sure loser than in their other 15 games. If I had known that before... well, from now on it´s easy: Every week go with the opponent of SEA (unless it´s a division game. There you go with the opponent of SEA when the Seahawks play at home).
Now that I got it, OFC I have to change my pick. This week I´ll go with Indy...
LOLZ... OFC not. But you don´t know which 3/4 games the best teams lose. So pick the most likely outcomes. That means going for a win by SEA every week can´t be wrong.Pricey_sky said:I've not been a fan of NFL for long, but there aren't many teams that go 16-0 are there?
Only one, the 2007 New England Patriots. They were 16-0 and poised to win the Superbowl, but played a NY Giant team that had an excellent defense, and some key, and lucky, plays went the Giants way. And in the end, the Patriots lost. And here's a point Foxxy would emphasize. Nearly every expert says if these teams played 10 times, the Patriots would have won 9 of those games (they beat the Giants, in NY, in the regular season), but in that one Superbowl game, it wasn't to be.Pricey_sky said:I've not been a fan of NFL for long, but there aren't many teams that go 16-0 are there?
And even then, the results were the same. 49ers winning with Smith and Kaep. Smith was about to break the Cmp.-Pct.-Season record when he was benched. Kaep shone as a multi threat with a monster arm when he was called into starting duties. Even after his struggles, I still like Kaep much more... since I think in a league where the best should play, there shall be no place for butter armed QBs who can´t top 50 mph ball speed.Alpe d'Huez said:Alex Smith and Colin Kaepernick are different QBs.
Now that´s a bold statement. They gave up 351 points during the RS. Back then it was the most ever by a SB winning team D. And in the playoffs they won 3 in a row by 4-3-3. Every game could have gone the other way. Speak of streaks. That´s the one...Alpe d'Huez said:but played a NY Giant team that had an excellent defense
Ah yes I do remember that, my first game I watched was 2004 Super Bowl when Carolina just lost to NE. I watched on and off for a few years but only really started watching regularly for the past 3 seasons. I'm still a Panthers fan now!Alpe d'Huez said:Only one, the 2007 New England Patriots. They were 16-0 and poised to win the Superbowl, but played a NY Giant team that had an excellent defense, and some key, and lucky, plays went the Giants way. And in the end, the Patriots lost. And here's a point Foxxy would emphasize. Nearly every expert says if these teams played 10 times, the Patriots would have won 9 of those games (they beat the Giants, in NY, in the regular season), but in that one Superbowl game, it wasn't to be.
That one I like. It describes it the best.Alpe d'Huez said:Good call Foxxy. I should have said the Giants played an excellent defensive game, and were solid in the playoffs.
I like that even more. You are on a roll now.Alpe d'Huez said:Of course if Eli's last name were not Manning we wouldn't have seen much more of him than, say, JP Loseman
Not almost. It is. Like Bradys MVP in 2001 behind a whopping 144 yards and 13 points scored. That tropphy became a joke that very year...Alpe d'Huez said:The whole "two Superbowl MVP" thing is almost laughable when you look at what he actually did, versus what the rest of his team (especially the defense) did.
Don´t know if Druckenmiller was that strong. Only heard about, but never saw. Anyway: Wrong system for such a QB.Alpe d'Huez said:As to arm strength, we'll, it's not everything or Jamarcus Russell, Kyle Boller, Jim Druckenmiller etc. would have won endless games.
Yeah. What a joke. Enough said. Like Frye or McNown (couldn´t even give the ball a spiral). I wouldn´t even invite them to camp.Alpe d'Huez said:Remember Colt Brennan?
It did. Remember the 80s/90s 49ers?Alpe d'Huez said:A million yards off endless 1-5 yard passes. That won't work in the NFL.
Besides PM (quick release, thus hard to stop even with a weak arm, unless OFC it´s playoff crunch time and he throws real hardcore ducks), I think those QBs could easily be stopped (as I wrote in my last post).Alpe d'Huez said:As to stopping PM, or "noodle" armed QB's, I think part of the reason we're seeing so many short-medium passes is that defenses have fallen in love with the Tampa 2 and Cover 3 defenses and don't want to take the risk of getting burned on long plays. It's the same ultra conservative logic coaches use in rarely going for it on 4th down for example, no matter how many Stanford/MIT etc. number crunchers show it's a good idea. But I'm no expert, so...
Yeah, sometimes my english is a little confusing.Alpe d'Huez said:Despite your excellent english Foxxy, I think there was something a little lost in what you wrote and I had to read it twice.
What you were saying (I'm sure of this now) is that the way Seattle plays aggressive defense, will expose other team's pretenders at the QB position.
Put another way still, if your quarterback looks good on paper, or puts up good stats one week against a team sitting in deep zone coverage all day, they may play Seattle the next week and that same QB will look very average, at best.
Generally I would agree. But... the Rams got beat pretty bad in the 2nd game. And Schaub had the best game of them all: 31/49, 355 (mostly while leading the game!). Problem is; people/media give to much attention to a pick-6. If that didn´t happen (the lone mistake), Schaub would have been praised. If we look at Schaub in the long run, he is a pretty good QB.The Hitch said:Seems to me to beat Seattle you need a great defense. 2 of the 3 teams that beat Seattle last year did so on defense (San Fran and Arizona when Palmer threw 4 ints). Indy have an ok defense, didn't watch that game so didn't see what happened. Aditionally teams that run them close were Rams (defense team) Texans (defense team) Bucs (defense team) and Panthers (defense team)
You look at the quarterbacks in these games its Cam, Kaep, Luck which are 3 quarterbacks who are sitll developing (future top tier, atm mid pack ) and then Palmer, Schaub, Glennon, and Clemmens all bottom tier quarterbacks last year.
The ideal team to beat them is probably something like the New York Jets