DFWChargerFan

LOL - I'd say that just about sums up all your picks.

Seriously dude, picking the Chargers, Colts and Cowboys to be the worst teams next year is nothing short of a pipe dream of yours. How about taking the homer glasses off and giving it another try??

alvinnf

I'll take the Detroit Lions in the NFC, rationale is less Martz more Martinelli, and in the AFC put me down for the Bengals, C.J keeps on whining maybe even gets traded and the Bengals pull a Tiki Barber one less diva room for one more football player.

AFPatsFan12

Good:

Kansas City -- Might take a couple of years, but they had a fantastic draft, play in a weak division, and might challenge for 9-10 wins...

St. Louis -- A disastrous 2007 campaign, but if this team can stay healthy, they still have talent offensively, and are young and solid on defense. I like the Rams to win the NFC East...

Bad:

Pittsburgh -- Maybe not a "surprise", per se, but they have one of the most difficult schedules I have ever seen (of course we have no idea what games in May will still be tough in September....). This schedule reminds me of the 2005 Pats' murderer's row to begin that season...

New York Giants -- Super Bowl hangover + difficult schedule = mediocre season... might sneak in at 9-7 (which, as they proved last year, you just need to get in), but I don't see them replicating last year's success

Double G

"The secondary of the Patriots is still superior to that of the Giants". You mean the secondary that couldn't make a big play in the final Giants drive and is now minus the best part, Samuel? Get real.

"But it is more likely that a 16-0 team will take a step back than a 10-6 one, eh?" They were a 16-0 team that stumbled and bumbled their way down the stretch, should have lost at least two games in that time frame and had their hands full with a depleted Chargers team. How would the Patriots have faired in San Diego with Brady playing on one leg, Maroney out and Moss playing on one leg as well, you tell me because that is what the Chargers did and they played the Patriots tough.

"The Giants played terribly against the Packers" But they made the plays they had to make on the road in sub zero temperatures and won the game, that's all that matters.

"and were a miracle catch away from being "well, at least they made it a game." But the guy made the catch, see above.

"Theymade it a game because of Tuck, Umenyiora, and Strahan. Without one of those three they will be severely weakened and simply don't have the rest of the talent on defense to make up for a quarterback prone to terrible play on an inconsistent offense." I guess you could say they be like the 2000 Patriots, ie, win a Super Bowl they had no business winning and go on to dominate for several years, or be like Tampa, Baltimore and the Rams; one and one................

__________________
"We don't throw at .260 hitters." Tek to Pay-Fraud before he smacked him across the face.

KontradictioN

The Colts and Chargers in the same notion as "bad"? Sounds like blind homerism.

I do agree with you about the Raiders though. I don't know what you were talking about with Russell since he threw a lot of picks in the Jax game, but I think he can improve with another year under his belt and McFadden should come in and make an immediate impact.

__________________

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


CREDIT - Sicilian

bradmahn

Ross has talent but is untested, they have Sammy Knight penciled in as a starter, Kenny Philips will have to beat Butler to start at FS, and Sam Madison is not the Sam Madison of three years ago. They don't have a good secondary. I'll take Hobbs, Rodney (or Sanders) and Meriweather over their counterparts on the Giants.

"They were a 16-0 team that stumbled and bumbled their way down the stretch, should have lost at least two games in that time frame," but they actually did win them! The Giants should have lost to either the Cowboys, Packers or Patriots - but they didn't. They played ugly in some of those games, but they won. When the Patriots played ugly in the final weeks of the season and won they "stumbled" and it's a precursor to a fall off in 2008. Hypocrisy, thy name is Double G.

Beyond Brady playing on a bad leg (not as bad as Rivers's, of course, but he wasn't healthy either) the Patriots had the ball for the final nine minutes of a game they won 21-12. What defensive stars for the Chargers were out, and were they going to get the ball back for their offense with under nine minutes to go if they were playing?

(And see my post above on just how ridiculous it is that you are pointing to a game the Patriots won handily as a reason they are going to fall off, but the Giants "making the plays they needed to make" and beating the Packers by three points in overtime of a game that Brett Favre absolutely did not want to win does not signify anything in their quest to repeat in '08.)

I am saying they are going to be like the 2001 Patriots, in that they made a great run to the Super Bowl and will fall off the next year because of a weakened defense and an offense that can't pick up the slack. It doesn't matter what they do after that, we (or at least myself) are talking about the following year, not decade.

And I'd certainly argue that the '01 Patriots, who were 11-5 and the second seed in the conference, were a stronger team than the Giants of '07.

__________________
I don't like Dungy and that's because he [was] the head coach of the Colts. Period. End of question. The degree to which I like a player or coach is predicated solely on the color of the laundry they wear on Sunday. When fans admit this and stop bashing players and coaches for any other reason, the world of sports will be infinitely improved.

tombonneau

I think the Panthers will win their (weak) division. With a healthy Delhomme and a potential stud RB in Stewart, they could easily go 11-5.

In the AFC, I actually like the Raiders to contend for a wild card. As someone else stated, Russell looked decent end of the season and they've managed to improve an already excellent ground game with McFadden. Combine with a solid not spectacular D, they could be looking at 10-6 in an average AFC West.

KontradictioN

Can't agree here. I would have called the Raiders ground game "excellent" in '07.

__________________

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


CREDIT - Sicilian

tombonneau

They had the #6 rushing offense in the NFL and managed to make Fargas a 1,000 yard back. I suppose it can depend on how you define "excellent," but the fact remains they ran for more yards than 26 other NFL teams. That's well above-average.

PATRIOTSFANINPA

In the AFC, The Houston Texans with a healthy Matt Schaub could win 10 games


In the NFC, I of course am going with what appears to be the 'Sexy' pick every year and thats the Arizona Cardinals - The offseason transactions and the draft may finally get them to win 10 games