Come on man, i just warm up (coming back of my hold-out), so just let me start it off easy... 
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Ok, let´s go a little further. Expect the unexpected: we´ll see a shootout in the WAS-PIT game. Something like 35-28. Unluckily it will be the Steelers how´ll win...
TB at Minn - I'm wrong already on this one.
Mia at NYJ - Jets roll over again. Tebow is trade bait. But bait only.
SD at Cle - Even Norv can't botch this one.
Indy at Tenn - Colts weak on the road.
Pats at Rams - NE must win, but this will be close.
Jags at Packers - Lock of the week.
Falcons at Eagles - Coming off bye weeks, I like the Eagles D.
Redskins at Steelers - Shootout is indeed possible.
Seahawks at Lions - Defense rules the day in a close game.
Panthers at Bears - Bears D rolls. Panthers in free fall?
Raiders at Chiefs - What a disappointment KC is.
Giants at Cowboys - No way Romo plays like he did in week 1.
Saints at Broncos - But I like the Saints chances.
49ers at Cardinals - SF still quite good. Ari has no offense.
PS. I do believe it's possible for Houston to get to the SB, simply because the AFC is pretty weak. They only have to worry about a struggling Patriots, and I believe the Steelers if they can get and stay healthy. But SF, I'm not sold on in big games, or when behind. Too many other NFC teams capable of topping them in January. NYG, Packers, Atlanta, Bears even.
Mia at NYJ - Jets roll over again. Tebow is trade bait. But bait only.
SD at Cle - Even Norv can't botch this one.
Indy at Tenn - Colts weak on the road.
Pats at Rams - NE must win, but this will be close.
Jags at Packers - Lock of the week.
Falcons at Eagles - Coming off bye weeks, I like the Eagles D.
Redskins at Steelers - Shootout is indeed possible.
Seahawks at Lions - Defense rules the day in a close game.
Panthers at Bears - Bears D rolls. Panthers in free fall?
Raiders at Chiefs - What a disappointment KC is.
Giants at Cowboys - No way Romo plays like he did in week 1.
Saints at Broncos - But I like the Saints chances.
49ers at Cardinals - SF still quite good. Ari has no offense.
PS. I do believe it's possible for Houston to get to the SB, simply because the AFC is pretty weak. They only have to worry about a struggling Patriots, and I believe the Steelers if they can get and stay healthy. But SF, I'm not sold on in big games, or when behind. Too many other NFC teams capable of topping them in January. NYG, Packers, Atlanta, Bears even.
This isn't the first time that the Thursday game has provided the shock of the week. I think the vast majority of pundits and pickers got this one wrong.
I'll see the highlights later this afternoon.
I'll see the highlights later this afternoon.
SirLes said:
Man I regret writing that. Just when I thought it couldn't get more stressful. What a game.
It was basically the Cowboys vs the Cowboys and the Cowboys lost.
At some point here the Giants luck has to run out. That was one game also that Cowboys fans had their hearts ripped out.
Not enough time to write, hurricane coming this way, but I was impressed with the Pats, but don't think they can play like this every week. Well, they can't.
Broncos looked good. Defense better than I thought. Great actually.
Good win for Steelers, I like their chances later this year.
Out of time, will try to comment more after Monday's game, if I can see it.
Not enough time to write, hurricane coming this way, but I was impressed with the Pats, but don't think they can play like this every week. Well, they can't.
Broncos looked good. Defense better than I thought. Great actually.
Good win for Steelers, I like their chances later this year.
Out of time, will try to comment more after Monday's game, if I can see it.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Jeez, I though you were on the protected West Coast. It's warm and a little wet.
Look at my location. Top right of each post.
BTW, Michael Vick has to be finished in Philly. I called for it in the pre-season, but if there was ever a time to jettison Vick and start getting Foles ready for the future, it's now. With the disorganized Saints on deck for next week it's perfect timing. Even if they lose at least they'll get a better look at Nick, and it could save Andy Reid's job. The O will have to alter though. Foles isnt a scrambler. He is more of a pocket passer, but he's big and strong. The guy I'd compare him to physically is Roethlesberger.
BTW, Michael Vick has to be finished in Philly. I called for it in the pre-season, but if there was ever a time to jettison Vick and start getting Foles ready for the future, it's now. With the disorganized Saints on deck for next week it's perfect timing. Even if they lose at least they'll get a better look at Nick, and it could save Andy Reid's job. The O will have to alter though. Foles isnt a scrambler. He is more of a pocket passer, but he's big and strong. The guy I'd compare him to physically is Roethlesberger.
The Giants luck will run out in this years postseason. That´s the time when regression to the mean finally hits them. It will be the start of even out all the luck they had in the past 100 years.
Look at the Patriots. They had their 23 game winning streak some 10 yrs ago (winning most games by 3 or 4 points, OTOH usually big win streaks come with dominating performances by superior teams), the stolen SB vs Warners Rams, the incredible luck in the SB vs CAR, and so on.... And then it was over. As 16-0 team, they started their postseason flops: Qualifiying every year as one of the best teams with very good records, only to lose unlucky or sometimes even getting humilated. That streak is still running.
Nothing else i expect for the Giants. They depended too much on luck in their Championship/SB years 1934, 1990, 2007 and last year. They have consumed all the luck given to them for the past, present and future.
If regression to the mean in the long run exists (of which i have no doubt), the Giants will not win another Superbowl in our lifetimes, even if they would have 3 undefeated regular seasons in between.
Conclusion: I can sit back relaxed and watch their 13-3 something like regular season of this year going down the toilet in the post season. No doubt about that (unless the big fix gets in).
Vick will bounce back, as Newton and RG3 will. They are too talented for not being successful in the long run. The worst thing that Reid could do, would be to bench Vick and replace him with a less talented unknown backup. That would be fatal. It´s still the same plays in the playbook, but then executed by a waeker arm with less velocity, weaker and slower legs and less experience. There is simply no way that the Eagles would fare better with whoever is sitting on the bench. No way, ever... Just my 1 and a half cents.
Look at the Patriots. They had their 23 game winning streak some 10 yrs ago (winning most games by 3 or 4 points, OTOH usually big win streaks come with dominating performances by superior teams), the stolen SB vs Warners Rams, the incredible luck in the SB vs CAR, and so on.... And then it was over. As 16-0 team, they started their postseason flops: Qualifiying every year as one of the best teams with very good records, only to lose unlucky or sometimes even getting humilated. That streak is still running.
Nothing else i expect for the Giants. They depended too much on luck in their Championship/SB years 1934, 1990, 2007 and last year. They have consumed all the luck given to them for the past, present and future.
If regression to the mean in the long run exists (of which i have no doubt), the Giants will not win another Superbowl in our lifetimes, even if they would have 3 undefeated regular seasons in between.
Conclusion: I can sit back relaxed and watch their 13-3 something like regular season of this year going down the toilet in the post season. No doubt about that
(unless the big fix gets in). Vick will bounce back, as Newton and RG3 will. They are too talented for not being successful in the long run. The worst thing that Reid could do, would be to bench Vick and replace him with a less talented unknown backup. That would be fatal. It´s still the same plays in the playbook, but then executed by a waeker arm with less velocity, weaker and slower legs and less experience. There is simply no way that the Eagles would fare better with whoever is sitting on the bench. No way, ever... Just my 1 and a half cents.
Uh, have you been watching him play??? What on earth makes you say he's so talented? Because he can scramble and make hi-light reels once a week or so? His games are on here every week, and he's not very good. He's a turnover machine, can't hit receivers with consistency. He's currently 25th in passer rating, just above Blaine Gabbert. 25th in completion percentage, below Tannehill and Cassell. 21st in yards per attempt, below Wilson, Palmer, etc. so it's not like his numbers are low because he's throwing deep. He's thrown nearly as many interceptions as TD's (9/8) Barely better than Weeden, and worse than Mark Sanchez. He leads the league in fumbles as well. And his ability to scramble hasn't meant more big plays, or less sacks - he's 5th in the league on that one. And his arm strength certainly isn't much more than that of Nick Foles, if at all. His wind-up delivery also takes longer than your average QB. And as we've seen in the past, having a cannon of an arm (which he really doesn't have anyway) doesn't translate into a great QB. If it did Jim Druckenmiller would be in the HOF, JaMarcus Russell would be leading the Raiders vs Kyle Boller's Chargers in the AFC championship, and Mitch Mustain would have won the Heisman instead of RGIII. And Tom Brady and Joe Montana never would have won anything.FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Vick's entire aura has been based around hi-light clips of him scrambling around and tossing a long ball to fairly open receivers way down field, or tucking it away and running. That's it. It's not based on consistent playing, and it's not based on winning. The media and masses have continually made excuses for him, for nearly a decade now, and he's never won much of anything, even when surrounded by top flight players.
Year after year, Vick spends the season hurt or posting mediocre numbers that fall more in line with Aaron Brooks or Tim Tebow. And yet, each offseason, "experts" continue to predict big things for Vick, praising his revolutionary style and making excuses as to why he hasn't been successful yet and why this will be the year. First it was the natural development of the QB - it takes a quarterback about 3 seasons before things officially lock in. Then it was the ineptitude of his receivers - yet the Falcons had a serviceable group that included stand-out tight end Alge Crumpler and others. And the Eagles are stacked with talent. Next excuse was the adjustment Vick had to make to Jim Mora Jr.'s West Coast offense, then to life after prison, then Andy Reid's style. Now it's that he doesn't get flags like other QB's. One excuse after another, for almost a decade now.
So, he's going to bounce back. When? When is that going to happen? Now it's Year 3 in Philly, his 9th in the league, at age 32, and it's time for the nation to wake up and realize that Vick is just no good. He has the same problems as the aforementioned Brooks, or Tebow: inconsistency, poor decision-making skills, unable to see 2nd and 3rd options, etc. Yet somehow Vick's poor play has escaped the media's ire by his "revolutionary" style of play, which equates to nothing more than bailing out of a play at the first sign of resistance and turning things into a broken play, or taking off into the open field. On passing plays Vick frequently blows timing plays, ignores his receivers, and results in broken plays that often end in turnovers.
Maybe Nick Foles isn't the long term answer. And he will have rookie struggles that certainly come from starting mid-season. But seriously, aside from some good games in 2010, and running a lot in 2002, what has Vick ever done in his entire career to warrant being called a top QB?
I base it on him being able to translate his arm strength and QB-Skills in high Y/PP numbers since his comeback.
8th among QB´s in 2011, 6th in 2010.
OTOH, if Vick is back to his (bad) old ATL days, then you are absolutely right.
But that means he forgot how to play QB in just one winter. Is that the case? Or is it just half season and he still can come back to the mean?
And turnovers are mostly random. I never base performance on this rare acts, unless you are prone to it over a long period of time. AFIR, Moon (or little-hands-Dave-Krieg) "managed" to fumble a lot trou-out his career. With him, it must have been "skill".
PS: Who is Mustain*? Stronger than RG3? Wow, then he must be someone like Toby Korrodi...
* I admit i am not aware of him, since you know for long i am not into college football since the late 80s.
PS.PS: I think we also agree(d) that QB´s are worth just over 1/11 on the offense. It´s no secret that QB´s get too much credit in winning and too much blame in losing. I said this since Day 1. So if Brady and Butter-Arm-Montana won a lot of SB´s it had a lot to do with the talent around them, and good coaching/strategy... and luck of course.
BTW, i rate, for example, the likes of Marino, McMahon and Warner wayyy above Brady and Montana, who were/are system QB´s. No matter whom you put in at their teams, every QB shone.
8th among QB´s in 2011, 6th in 2010.
OTOH, if Vick is back to his (bad) old ATL days, then you are absolutely right.
But that means he forgot how to play QB in just one winter. Is that the case? Or is it just half season and he still can come back to the mean?
And turnovers are mostly random. I never base performance on this rare acts, unless you are prone to it over a long period of time. AFIR, Moon (or little-hands-Dave-Krieg) "managed" to fumble a lot trou-out his career. With him, it must have been "skill".
PS: Who is Mustain*? Stronger than RG3? Wow, then he must be someone like Toby Korrodi...
* I admit i am not aware of him, since you know for long i am not into college football since the late 80s.
PS.PS: I think we also agree(d) that QB´s are worth just over 1/11 on the offense. It´s no secret that QB´s get too much credit in winning and too much blame in losing. I said this since Day 1. So if Brady and Butter-Arm-Montana won a lot of SB´s it had a lot to do with the talent around them, and good coaching/strategy... and luck of course.
BTW, i rate, for example, the likes of Marino, McMahon and Warner wayyy above Brady and Montana, who were/are system QB´s. No matter whom you put in at their teams, every QB shone.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Thank you for that, Alpe. I dislike him almost as much as you do.
In other news, my Skins receivers equaled the NFL record with 10 dropped passes, all of which were thrown on the button by the next extra-great QB.
They then set a new record with 11. Another classic Skins epic fail.
Skins fans fervently hope that they will be able to build a team worthy of playing with RG3 at some point before he retires.
That's a nice stat, sure. But it can't come close to everything else I piled up, sorry.FoxxyBrown1111 said:
But I do agree while QB is the most important position, it's still 1/11, and that doesn't include coaching (look at New Orleans). While I think Vick is overhyped and all but finished, and I think Foles could be a good future for the Eagles, he too is still 1/11.
Mitch Mustain was a QB at USC who had a huge arm, and busted.
Alpe d'Huez said:
It´s the stat
for measuring a QB´s performance (which, of course still depends heavily on the team performance around him), it correlates/predicts best future performance, it´s the reason why teams win or lose.Basically 90% of any predictions i do are based on that stat. And i fared pretty well with it since the early 1990´s.
Still i give you the advantage for now: If Vick is truly back to his old ATL form & habits, all hope is lost. But i believe he´s on a bad luck (turnover) streak, and his Y/PP will regress to his normal level (= back to the top quarter of the NFL).
FoxxyBrown1111 said:It´s the stat
Basically 90% of any predictions i do are based on that stat. And i fared pretty well with it since the early 1990´s.
Still i give you the advantage for now: If Vick is truly back to his old ATL form & habits, all hope is lost. But i believe he´s on a bad luck (turnover) streak, and his Y/PP will regress to his normal level (= back to the top quarter of the NFL).
Whoa, here\s a contrarian view of what makes a QB great:
Interesting, IIRC, Foxxy and others speculated here last year that Griffin was more accurate than Luck at throwing long. But it seems his superior YPA comes in large part from the Skins receivers running with the ball after catching a relatively short pass. Though I believe Luck's game winner vs. Tenn. came on a pass that didn't cross the line of scrimmage, and all the yards came after the catch.
I should add that this analysis only applies to QBs, not to the team they play on. YPA is still a very good measure of how successful a team will be. The point of the analysis is to emphasize that contributions to YPA come not only from the QB, but from his receivers. Not just in the sense of getting open, obviously, but in their ability to run with the ball after the catch. That will increase the YPA, and the team's chances of winning, but the credit for that increase goes to the receiver, not to the QB, Or if you like, to the offensive scheme that puts receivers in position to run after the catch.
I take RG3 over Luck, by the length of the average galaxy.
And my predictions weren´t that wrong:
RG3 at 7,0 Y/PP (AFIK, this tops the all time rookie record of Marino, OTOH we are just halfway in the season so that can still regress).
Luck at 6,1 Y/PP (Below NFL-Avg, OTOH that´s normal for a rookie. I mean it would be unfair to compare him to a bionic QB like RG3, who is as seldom as drug free cyclists named Lance Armstrong).
Indy is 23rd in Y/PP, while WAS is 4th. By the way the stat has DEN at No. 1, NYG at No. 2. So who needs all that new artifical ratings? They don´t identify other things than Y/PP does. No matter how many gigabytes the new formulas need. Nothings tops Y/PP since Sid Luckman came to the NFL. It´s simple, true and correlats best with future outcomes. Even Advanced NFL stats (a great site BTW) do admit this.
Fumbles: Well, that is a low number. 10 fumbles to none don´t say anything. If a QB has fumblitis can be diagnosed after years of playing, not on such a micro sample size. That doesn´t mean that turnovers are not game deciders. They are! But they are mostly random.
And my predictions weren´t that wrong:
RG3 at 7,0 Y/PP (AFIK, this tops the all time rookie record of Marino, OTOH we are just halfway in the season so that can still regress).
Luck at 6,1 Y/PP (Below NFL-Avg, OTOH that´s normal for a rookie. I mean it would be unfair to compare him to a bionic QB like RG3, who is as seldom as drug free cyclists named Lance Armstrong).
Indy is 23rd in Y/PP, while WAS is 4th. By the way the stat has DEN at No. 1, NYG at No. 2. So who needs all that new artifical ratings? They don´t identify other things than Y/PP does. No matter how many gigabytes the new formulas need. Nothings tops Y/PP since Sid Luckman came to the NFL. It´s simple, true and correlats best with future outcomes. Even Advanced NFL stats (a great site BTW) do admit this.
Fumbles: Well, that is a low number. 10 fumbles to none don´t say anything. If a QB has fumblitis can be diagnosed after years of playing, not on such a micro sample size. That doesn´t mean that turnovers are not game deciders. They are! But they are mostly random.
I will take Andrew Luck as my QB every day of the week. RGIII is very exciting to watch but will be nowhere near the QB that Luck will be.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I agree, in that it predicts the success of the TEAM. What I should have emphasized is that the QBR emphasizes that YPA is the result of contributions from both the QB and the WRs. Not only in that the latter have to get open, obviously, but if they can run with the ball after the catch, that increases the YPA. That increase does correlate with increased chances of winning, but credit for that increase should go to the WR, or perhaps to the offensive schemes, not to the QB. Identifying the teams with the best YPA passing does not necessarily identify the best QBs.
QBs are not taught to find the open receiver with the best chance of running after the catch, they are just taught to find the most open receiver. So I don't see how the QB can be given credit for the yards a receiver makes following the catch. And Washington has a large edge over Indy in that respect. We all understand that a QB's success is to a large extent due to the team surrounding him. What the QBR attempts to do is quantify some of these team factors. It still does not take into account how good the OL is, how good the WRs are in getting open, etc., but at least it identifies a portion of passing yardage that should not be attributed to the QB.
veganrob said:
He is playing at least as well now as PM was when he was a rookie. Conversely, one looks at Cam Newton now, after his great rookie season, and wonders how much one can predict from the first year.
P.S. - And I thought there was a QB controversy at SF? Not tonight, I guess.
Welcome to the conversation, MI.
The other problem with relying on Y/PP is that it supposedly translates into winning. But if you look at Vick, he isn't actually winning. And if youre actually watching him play, like I have been, you'll see he is one of the reasons the Eagles are not winning.
As to Luck, he just had probably his best game of the season, but he's had some poor games as well. I'll stick with what I said before the draft and that both RGIII and Luck are going to be solid to exceptional QBs in their career.
Nice win for SF, and they are good, especially on defense, but they are good at beating up on hapless teams. When they come from behind in a close playoff game, or against a top flight team, wake me.
The other problem with relying on Y/PP is that it supposedly translates into winning. But if you look at Vick, he isn't actually winning. And if youre actually watching him play, like I have been, you'll see he is one of the reasons the Eagles are not winning.
As to Luck, he just had probably his best game of the season, but he's had some poor games as well. I'll stick with what I said before the draft and that both RGIII and Luck are going to be solid to exceptional QBs in their career.
Nice win for SF, and they are good, especially on defense, but they are good at beating up on hapless teams. When they come from behind in a close playoff game, or against a top flight team, wake me.
I have a real issue with statistics being used to prove a point or make a conclusion in sports as there are so many variables. From my experience as a coach and player statistics are best used as the starting point for further analysis as they result in more questions rather than finding answers.
The best example I know of is where coaches of a GB side decided that possession was key and so they kept stats on every player based on the number of times they successfully complted passes or gave the ball away. (not unlike the completion % for a QB I suppose). The players were aware of this and knew it formed a major part of selection.
The results were disasterous for the team as players only gave short high percentage passes so they would look good on the stats sheet but not what was the best option for the team. Players whole mind set was changed and it destroyed some players.
Another one from rugby coaching course is when the statistics for a match were shown but the result and teams not shown. One team was ahead in every category and Coaches were asked to say who won. Naturally they said the team with the highest possession, territory etc but in fact they were well beaten. It wasn't even close.
fans and the media (and some coaches) love stats as they seem very scientific and importnat plus it doesn't require a great deal of time or thought to come to a seemingly logical conclusion. A fun game is to come up with as many different contradictory conclusions that can could have caused those set of statistics.
The only way you can truely draw any firm conclusions and evaluate a player properly is to watch games mutiple times with knowledge of what the players were trying to do and why in certain situations. No one, other than the coaches, actually have the time to do this.
Football statistics can be very missleading because with only 16 games in a regular season the sample size is small. Throw in the fact that each team has a different schedule and so face different problems to game plan for and it's even less worthwhile.
A balanced all round team probably has no one who sets the fantasy football world alight as everyone contributes and decisions are based on what is best depending on the situation and what the oppostion do.
The best example I know of is where coaches of a GB side decided that possession was key and so they kept stats on every player based on the number of times they successfully complted passes or gave the ball away. (not unlike the completion % for a QB I suppose). The players were aware of this and knew it formed a major part of selection.
The results were disasterous for the team as players only gave short high percentage passes so they would look good on the stats sheet but not what was the best option for the team. Players whole mind set was changed and it destroyed some players.
Another one from rugby coaching course is when the statistics for a match were shown but the result and teams not shown. One team was ahead in every category and Coaches were asked to say who won. Naturally they said the team with the highest possession, territory etc but in fact they were well beaten. It wasn't even close.
fans and the media (and some coaches) love stats as they seem very scientific and importnat plus it doesn't require a great deal of time or thought to come to a seemingly logical conclusion. A fun game is to come up with as many different contradictory conclusions that can could have caused those set of statistics.
The only way you can truely draw any firm conclusions and evaluate a player properly is to watch games mutiple times with knowledge of what the players were trying to do and why in certain situations. No one, other than the coaches, actually have the time to do this.
Football statistics can be very missleading because with only 16 games in a regular season the sample size is small. Throw in the fact that each team has a different schedule and so face different problems to game plan for and it's even less worthwhile.
A balanced all round team probably has no one who sets the fantasy football world alight as everyone contributes and decisions are based on what is best depending on the situation and what the oppostion do.
With regards the Giants being lucky: is that the luck that means that on the crucial 3rd down to win the game the refs mark the ball nearly a whole yard short of where they should have done and thus prevent Bradshaw getting the first down (I've checked several times in slow motion btw!).
Or the luck that means the clock is routinely started late and stopped early in the last minute and a half to give give the cowboys at least one more shot?
Or the luck that means Hosely gets flagged for nothing when Romo is sacked which would have brought up 4th and lots?
Or the luck that means Garrett makes poor playcalls eg successive pass plays when they only need a yard or Dez Bryant or Romo does something stupid to turn the ball over because most teams have benefitted from those last ones!
Or the luck that means the clock is routinely started late and stopped early in the last minute and a half to give give the cowboys at least one more shot?
Or the luck that means Hosely gets flagged for nothing when Romo is sacked which would have brought up 4th and lots?
Or the luck that means Garrett makes poor playcalls eg successive pass plays when they only need a yard or Dez Bryant or Romo does something stupid to turn the ball over because most teams have benefitted from those last ones!
FoxxyBrown1111 said:The Giants luck will run out in this years postseason. That´s the time when regression to the mean finally hits them. It will be the start of even out all the luck they had in the past 100 years.
Look at the Patriots. They had their 23 game winning streak some 10 yrs ago (winning most games by 3 or 4 points, OTOH usually big win streaks come with dominating performances by superior teams), the stolen SB vs Warners Rams, the incredible luck in the SB vs CAR, and so on.... And then it was over. As 16-0 team, they started their postseason flops: Qualifiying every year as one of the best teams with very good records, only to lose unlucky or sometimes even getting humilated. That streak is still running.
Nothing else i expect for the Giants. They depended too much on luck in their Championship/SB years 1934, 1990, 2007 and last year. They have consumed all the luck given to them for the past, present and future.
If regression to the mean in the long run exists (of which i have no doubt), the Giants will not win another Superbowl in our lifetimes, even if they would have 3 undefeated regular seasons in between.
Conclusion: I can sit back relaxed and watch their 13-3 something like regular season of this year going down the toilet in the post season. No doubt about that
If what you're saying is true (and it might be as the Giants are currently making up for most of the 60s and 70s at the moment) does that mean we're about to enter and age where the Eagles win half a dozen SBs. Because if that's the case I'm leaving!
SirLes said:
I would agree with this. And it fits in with what I stated on Vick. While I piled a lot of stats to show his failings, I mostly base my opinion on watching him actually play, coupled with the seemingly endless excuses others repeatedly have for his not winning and making so many mistakes.
Power rankings out later today.
I know many million innocent pipo die each year on this mad world, but we should remember it´s just a game that we love, so such things should not happen on that field of play we all love, if coaches act correct, rules are applied and players play fair.
Very touching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ...play&list=FLCZpLC36E3D8wDXavjBViYA&playnext=1
Very touching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ...play&list=FLCZpLC36E3D8wDXavjBViYA&playnext=1
AP Power Rankings are out.We're halfway through the season (already!). Here are my rankings, and thoughts on the rest of the season.
1. Atlanta - 7-0 and a big win over Philly. A soft schedule coming up looks like a 14-2 season.
2. Houston - If the defense can continue to improve, they look headed to 13-3 maybe.
3. NYG - A tough schedule follows. Which NYG team plays the rest of the year? The one who whipped SF in SF, or the one who looked soft against Dallas? I'm thinking 11-5.
4. SF - Average schedule, looks like a 12-4 finish perhaps.
5. Chicago - Equally tough as what the NYG face, a real test. Looks like an 11-5 finish as well.
6. New England. They could finish 12-4 or 10-6, depending on which Pats team shows up. The one that thumped StL and Den, or the one who lost to Sea and almost lost to NYJ at home?
7. Denver - With the softest schedule left, this team could be a force, or falter when they face a tough team in the playoffs. Schedule looks like a 12-4 finish to me.
8. Pittsburgh - As noted, I like the Steelers chances to go deep in the playoffs, if they can get and stay healthy. Real sleeper of a team right now that could finish 12-4. The Giants game will be telling.
9. Green Bay - Which GB team will show up each week? The one who blew out Houston, and looked solid on D of late, or the one who can't protect Rodgers and lost to Indy? That's the difference between a 11-5 and 9-7 finish.
10. Baltimore - A very tough schedule tells me they'll be vying for a wildcard at 10-6, if lucky.
11. Minn has probably the toughest schedule left and with Ponder fading this tells me they peaked in week 3 and will miss the playoffs.
Look for Miami and Indy to fight for the 6th AFC playoff spot.
KC looks like a team to finish with the worst record in the NFL. It's astounding with all that talent how bad they are. A new coach and Geno Smith at QB could be the start of a quick turnaround.
1. Atlanta - 7-0 and a big win over Philly. A soft schedule coming up looks like a 14-2 season.
2. Houston - If the defense can continue to improve, they look headed to 13-3 maybe.
3. NYG - A tough schedule follows. Which NYG team plays the rest of the year? The one who whipped SF in SF, or the one who looked soft against Dallas? I'm thinking 11-5.
4. SF - Average schedule, looks like a 12-4 finish perhaps.
5. Chicago - Equally tough as what the NYG face, a real test. Looks like an 11-5 finish as well.
6. New England. They could finish 12-4 or 10-6, depending on which Pats team shows up. The one that thumped StL and Den, or the one who lost to Sea and almost lost to NYJ at home?
7. Denver - With the softest schedule left, this team could be a force, or falter when they face a tough team in the playoffs. Schedule looks like a 12-4 finish to me.
8. Pittsburgh - As noted, I like the Steelers chances to go deep in the playoffs, if they can get and stay healthy. Real sleeper of a team right now that could finish 12-4. The Giants game will be telling.
9. Green Bay - Which GB team will show up each week? The one who blew out Houston, and looked solid on D of late, or the one who can't protect Rodgers and lost to Indy? That's the difference between a 11-5 and 9-7 finish.
10. Baltimore - A very tough schedule tells me they'll be vying for a wildcard at 10-6, if lucky.
11. Minn has probably the toughest schedule left and with Ponder fading this tells me they peaked in week 3 and will miss the playoffs.
Look for Miami and Indy to fight for the 6th AFC playoff spot.
KC looks like a team to finish with the worst record in the NFL. It's astounding with all that talent how bad they are. A new coach and Geno Smith at QB could be the start of a quick turnaround.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Latest: wheresmybrakes
-
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: Pantani_lives
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024
- Latest: Oldermanish
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram