HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

Let me tell you why I'm having trouble understanding the logic of these ESPN dudes analyzing who ranks where. Are they ranking teams based on depth at each position or who they think is best at each position. Because the Chargers DO NOT HAVE THE BEST DEPTH IN THE LEAGUE! They wear down every season. Tomlinson busts out the gates early in the season and then gets less carries as the season goes on, or at least his numbers fall. They have a great running back in Tomlinson, but after that? Not much, not better than K.C. And then the Seahawks? After Alexander they don't have anybody! Either do the Redskins after Portis! I think even these experts are misunderstanding the meaning of "DEPTH CHART". What team is best collectively at each posistion, not who has the best individual player that starts for them. Thats where I see a major flaw in these rankings. The reciever rankings are fair, but Running backs, Run defense are what I have a problem with. In terms of DEPTH, the Pats have the best D-Line in Football and their LB's will be fine. They were nice to rank the Pats in the top 10 of pass defense. When I watched the show on ESPN, they had the Pats #2 in QB's and the Colts were number #1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I see it online that the Pats are #1, but I don't remember seeing it on T.V.

primetime

The Chargers problem is that no one knows how Rivers will do. If he plays up to the standard of the 1st/3rd pick in the draft, they'll be golden. If he's a stiff, they won't even make the playoffs.

dryheat44

It's flawed because it's a poll. And 90% percent of people who respond to on-line polls are either morons or homers.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

5 Rings for Brady!!

The other 10% are both.

drew4008

It's kind of hard to bash ESPN with a post like this showing you yourself have little knowledge beyond the big names. LT's backup Michael "The Burner" Turner is one of the best backups in the league and he proved it last year when he played, he's a home run threat and is short and stocky enough to make it hard to bring him down. Morris in Seattle is also thought to be one of the better backups, and at a point, Seattle was thinking of not even resigning Alexander and having Morris become the starter, which is pretty high praise about your backup. As for the Skins, Ladell Betts is a solid backup who has done a more than adequate job with his carries and they also have Cooley all over the place, and Sellers, Cartwright, and Nemo, all of which solid depth at certain jobs all over the backfield.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

Please, I know many names in the NFL. Yes I'm aware of Michael Turner, Yes I'm aware of Maurice Morris, Yes I'm aware of Ladell Betts.

Here are your stats for backups in the NFL:
Morris 2005 Seattle Seahawks 16 2 71 288 4.1 49 1 1 17 - Not eye popping, however, yards per carry is good
Betts 2005 Washington Redskins 12 0 89 338 3.8 22 1 1 17 - More yards, because more carries
Turner 2005 San Diego Chargers 16 0 57 335 5.9 83 3 1 11 - Best of the bunch

My point - K.C. should be #1. End of story! Johnson and Holmes (if he comes back) will be the best tandam in the league! Holmes can start anywhere and Johnson can start for any team. Turner, Betts, and Morris are unproven. They benefit from being a change of pace back. Denver could use more credit due to the fact that whoever they put in at running back, has a chance to gain 1,000 yards. In the end, you have made a great counter arguement and I thank you for that. All I know is, that the Pats are going to be a great team on offense and will be in the top 5. Their running game should be a lot better than last years, even though this is totally irrevelant to my arguement.

Aqua4Ever04

Their predictions are ridiculous. There is no way teams like Arizona, Baltimore and Atlanta belong above Miami. You guys are a good team, but are way too high IMO. We belong in the 7-9 range, as do you guys. Just my 2 cents.

desi-patsfan

i needed a laugh.

Aqua4Ever04

While some of you guys are very understanding, there are still a select few of you that are incrediablly vein. Why is that funny? I don't need to go over this again with you guys because this is argument has been beaten to death. But I want to know why that is so funny? It's not an outrageous statement and if you think you are the 4th best team in the NFL, you couldn't be more wrong.

hallfamebrady

Miami does belong in the 7 - 9 range.

We belong in the 12 - 4 range

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Proud season ticket holder of the New England Patriots.
Winner of Super Bowls 36, 38, and now 39.