ThePresence
Elite Member
I notice that you left out the SB stats. 🙂
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Deeko's NFL Predictions
Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I notice that you left out the SB stats. 🙂
Deeko
Lifer
Yes, he's been a better game manager than Dilfer was, never doubted that. As ThePresence pointed out, he was TERRIBLE in the Superbowl. A win is a win, but it was hardly thanks to your pal Ben. Plus, look farther than QB rating - its much easier to have a high QB rating if you only throw 25 times a game, compared to say, a Peyton Manning. Just like Steve Young has such a high career rating cuz he played a rating-friendly west coast offense (note: I don't mean to detract from Young, but according to his rating, he's the greatest QB to ever play the game). This is the first season Roethlisberger has thrown more than 20 TDs. In his rookie season, he only threw more than 25 times twice. In his second season, three times. Only ONE of those games (second season playoff win vs Denver) was his QB rating higher than his season average, which lends itself to the theory that he is not efficient in that role.
Like I said, he looks much better this season, but you have to be severely biased to not at least understand, even if you disagree, why people were skeptical of his ability to be more than a game manager-quarterback before this year.
Like I said, he looks much better this season, but you have to be severely biased to not at least understand, even if you disagree, why people were skeptical of his ability to be more than a game manager-quarterback before this year.
I know what his numbers were in the SB, but that win was hardly due to Ben? Please share whatever you are smoking, they don't even GET to the game without him. You can't win unless you are there, correct?
First season he has thrown for more than 20 TDs, whippee. Do you know how often Pitt runs on the goal line? The SB year they had over 20 rushing TD's, most were short yardage affairs that could have easily been a pass. Most teams pass in that situation, don't blame Ben because he plays for a team with the ability to run the ball to score.
AFC Wild Card Game 1/8 at Cincinnati: 148.7 passer-rating.
AFC Championship Game 1/22 at Denver: 124.9 passer-rating.
The Denver game was the only one where it was lower than his season average of @ 98.
* That presumption went out the window after his incredible 2nd postseason run. Those that sincerely doubted his ability to carry a team with his arm were satisfied after that postseason. Your original prediction for Pitt, and your opinion of the quality of that SB team & Ben's ability, clearly shows your severe bias.
According to your logic any QB that plays in the west coast offense, or averages less than 30 attempts per game will have a high rating, laughable at best.
Deeko
Lifer
hahah what? He gets credit for beating the Seahawks, because he played well in previous games? That's just stupid. Yes, you're correct, he played a big part in getting them to that point, but they don't hand you the Superbowl MVP because you played well in the championship game the week before.
He didn't throw the ball much PERIOD, not just near the goal line. You're proving my point, thanks! They've always been a run-first team with strong defense, so all Roethlisberger had to do was make a couple of good throws and not turn the ball over - the definition of a game manager QB. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. I'm a Cowboys fan, and as much as I disagreed with it, I understand why people have criticized Romo thus far in his career, why can't you do the same?
Remember, we're defending a stance taken in the preseason. He plays well in a limited role, has a good playoff run, and then BLOWS it in the superbowl, thankfully for him, the rest of his team play well enough for them to win. Great! Then he has a pretty rough stretch, with the accident and appendicitis or whatever it was, and following that he has a BAD season where he leads the league in interceptions, and his team goes a mediocore 8-8. How you can not understand criticizing him at that point, I don't know.
edit: and no...now you're jumping to conclusions. I didn't say ANY qb in those situations will have a high rating, but it is certainly much easier. Its the nature of the system, how can you deny that?
He didn't throw the ball much PERIOD, not just near the goal line. You're proving my point, thanks! They've always been a run-first team with strong defense, so all Roethlisberger had to do was make a couple of good throws and not turn the ball over - the definition of a game manager QB. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. I'm a Cowboys fan, and as much as I disagreed with it, I understand why people have criticized Romo thus far in his career, why can't you do the same?
Remember, we're defending a stance taken in the preseason. He plays well in a limited role, has a good playoff run, and then BLOWS it in the superbowl, thankfully for him, the rest of his team play well enough for them to win. Great! Then he has a pretty rough stretch, with the accident and appendicitis or whatever it was, and following that he has a BAD season where he leads the league in interceptions, and his team goes a mediocore 8-8. How you can not understand criticizing him at that point, I don't know.
edit: and no...now you're jumping to conclusions. I didn't say ANY qb in those situations will have a high rating, but it is certainly much easier. Its the nature of the system, how can you deny that?
Yes, he gets credit for winning the SB, he also got a ring. He has averaged 25 attempt per game over his career, hardly a "couple" of throws. Yes, he plays on a team with a good defense and strong running attack. For that reason he is never going to throw it 34 times a game like Manning, or 32 a game like Brady. Ask either of them if they would like to have a more balanced offensive attack, willing to bet they would be receptive. I can't tell you how many times I watched Pitt run the ball 10+ times in a row to end a game. Why would you pass when you have the lead and can run it out? Why would you throw in the red zone when you can pound it in for the same points? Granted most teams do not have that ability, but to suggest that is a refelction of his ineptitude is ridiculous.
Romo has not carried his team through an almost impossible post season run and gotten them to a SB. He has proven nothing so far, he deserves the skepticism until he does.
He also got sacked a ton last year, and this year his protection might be worse. Poor pass protection will lead to INT's, besides the obvious physical issues he had in the first half of the year. They did finish that season 6-2 once all the problems were well behind him. Anyone that characterized what happened those first 8 games as an overall indication of his career, while forgetting what he had already accomplished, is an idiot.
What is EVERY teams' strategy when playing Pitt? Stop the run, put the ball in Ben's hands, agree?
3. Steelers (6-10) - Once again the biggest farce of a championship team will show us that Roethlisburger is amazingly overrated.
Biggest farce of a championship team, hysterical. Big Ben "amazingly overrated", another laugher. How can he be overrated when "everyone" agrees he is just a game manager and supposedly questioned his ability after last season? At least make some sense rather than contradicting yourself.
Thanks for sharing your opinion and prediction, seems your judgement is rather questionable though. I noticed that was the case with a lot of your predictions though.
Biggest farce of a championship team, hysterical. Big Ben "amazingly overrated", another laugher. How can he be overrated when "everyone" agrees he is just a game manager and supposedly questioned his ability after last season? At least make some sense rather than contradicting yourself.
Thanks for sharing your opinion and prediction, seems your judgement is rather questionable though. I noticed that was the case with a lot of your predictions though.
Deeko
Lifer
Yes Alistar, thank you, you quoted that about two hours ago, but I might have missed it. Putting it in italics was a nice touch, but you should try bold at about 3pm for best effect. You're just like the Eagles fans last year that quoted my incorrect predicition for the Eagles about 10,000 times throughout the year. I've said many times that I'll get plenty wrong - its the nature of the game.
You keep sidestepping my point and screaming SUPERBOWL RING!!! He rarely was forced to throw the ball early in his career, and sure, that's a great situation to have. Then he gave a pitiful performance in the Superbowl, followed by a terrible year, so he drew criticism. Its really pretty simple. I've already admitted that he (and along with him, the Steelers) do look much better 10 games into the season, but if you can't understand why he was deserving of criticism this offseason, well....you're blind.
Sure, he has had some protection problems (heh - sound reminiscent of a certain playoff postgame conference that drew nothing but criticism for the QB in question), but to lay all the blame on the line is stupid.
You keep sidestepping my point and screaming SUPERBOWL RING!!! He rarely was forced to throw the ball early in his career, and sure, that's a great situation to have. Then he gave a pitiful performance in the Superbowl, followed by a terrible year, so he drew criticism. Its really pretty simple. I've already admitted that he (and along with him, the Steelers) do look much better 10 games into the season, but if you can't understand why he was deserving of criticism this offseason, well....you're blind.
Sure, he has had some protection problems (heh - sound reminiscent of a certain playoff postgame conference that drew nothing but criticism for the QB in question), but to lay all the blame on the line is stupid.
He was not forced to throw in those playoff games, the game plan was designed around him doing that though. He can't control that, but when given the chance he excelled. You keep sidestepping the fact of what he accomplished in the 3 posteason games leading to the SB, and the overall consensus of what his performance indicated. His performance that postseason proved he can win any game with his arm, that he is hardly just a "game manager".
Anyone that criticized him after last year while forgetting what he had already accomplished, is blind or suffers from selective memory. You state his horrible SB game and the problems the first half of the next season as a continous trend with nothing else having an effect. Most "experts" understood almost dying in a horrific crash, getting basically no reps in pre-season, then having an emergency surgery, and getting a concusion (bad protection) his first game back had more to do with his lackluster numbers than his true ability.
I will agree he holds the ball longer that the average QB, but part of that reason is play design. Pitt recievers run deep routes, and he rarely has a hot out. Having watched all of his games I can definitely say the majority of the protection problems the past two seasons have been because of poor offensive line play.
I understand predictions will never be 100%, I took offense to your opinion of teams past, which were not predictions. Save your "eagles fans" bias/hate for those talking about your predictions, not your opinions. You contradicted yourself by stating most pundits were rightly critical of Ben, but he was also overrated, it can't be both. As far as that team being the most overrated championship team ever, I would take them over quite a few others than won titles.
You remind me of every other Ben detractor (& Cowboys fan). Let me know when Romo wins a SB....
Deeko
Lifer
Well, Romo is in his second year as a starter...if they are to win this year (which I doubt, the Pats look unstoppable), he will have accomplished it with less starts under his belt than Roethlisberger. And they will have accomplished it in a pass-first offense, making it all the more an accomplishment for Romo.
He played very well in those earlier playoff games - I don't deny that, I've yet to deny that, but you're ignoring his horrible performance in the Superbowl. He went 9/21, 0 TDs, 2 INTs - rating of 22.6! In the game that matters most of all! And then, issues aside, he followed that up with a very poor season. Yet you still don't understand why I was critical of him. You say I'm contradicting myself...no, I'm saying the 'experts' that continued to love him and call him one of the best QBs in the league were wrong, and that I agreed with those critical. Believe it or not, not all 'experts' say the same thing!
You keep pointing to me being a Cowboys fan as reason for my opinon here - believe it or not, I don't care about the Steelers one way or another. I can't help it that half the teams in the league consider Dallas to be their biggest rival. There are only two teams I really hate, the Eagles and the Redskins, so don't point to me being a Dallas fan as reason for my criticism of Roethlisberger.
As for your taking offense to my opinion of the 2005 Steelers, cry me a river. I'm 23, you're right, there were probably plenty of bad championship teams that I was never around to see...but as far as Superbowl winners I've seen go, the 2005 Steelers were the worst of them. You've got your ring, so spare me your sob story about how biased and idiotic I am. I'd be more worried about losing the Jets, Broncos, and Cardinals in 2007 if I were you.
He played very well in those earlier playoff games - I don't deny that, I've yet to deny that, but you're ignoring his horrible performance in the Superbowl. He went 9/21, 0 TDs, 2 INTs - rating of 22.6! In the game that matters most of all! And then, issues aside, he followed that up with a very poor season. Yet you still don't understand why I was critical of him. You say I'm contradicting myself...no, I'm saying the 'experts' that continued to love him and call him one of the best QBs in the league were wrong, and that I agreed with those critical. Believe it or not, not all 'experts' say the same thing!
You keep pointing to me being a Cowboys fan as reason for my opinon here - believe it or not, I don't care about the Steelers one way or another. I can't help it that half the teams in the league consider Dallas to be their biggest rival. There are only two teams I really hate, the Eagles and the Redskins, so don't point to me being a Dallas fan as reason for my criticism of Roethlisberger.
As for your taking offense to my opinion of the 2005 Steelers, cry me a river. I'm 23, you're right, there were probably plenty of bad championship teams that I was never around to see...but as far as Superbowl winners I've seen go, the 2005 Steelers were the worst of them. You've got your ring, so spare me your sob story about how biased and idiotic I am. I'd be more worried about losing the Jets, Broncos, and Cardinals in 2007 if I were you.
ThePresence
Elite Member
No hate for the Giants? 🙁
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
From what I've seen, give Ben the Dallas O-line and suddenly the Steelers are undefeated...absolutely horrendous protection this season.
Give anybody the Dallas O line this season and they would be 2-4 games better (save the pats since they can't get any better). I am a Dallas fan and the mvp of this season is the O line. People will argue with me and say Romo but if Romo was getting hit like Carr did in Houston he wouldn't be winning games. Gotta love the big boys up front.
If it's any conselation I hate the Giants.
Alistar7: keep it up man, this ownage is hilarious.
Half the teams hardly consider Dallas to be their "biggest rival", too much Cowboy kool-aid for you I see.
Actually Romo would have more starts under his belt if he wins it all this year, but I stopped expecting accuracy from you anyways.
3. Steelers (6-10) - Once again the biggest farce of a championship team will show us that Roethlisburger is amazingly overrated.
Perhaps you could explain how such a horrible team could win that SB when their QB also had the worst performance of his career? Again, reality contradicts with your less than informed opinion. I have been watching pro football for 30+ years, I'm sorry you lack my perspective.
Essentially, you completely discounted the amazing first two seasons Ben enjoyed in making that prediction. You ignore what he has proven with that remarkable playoff run, that he can carry a team with his arm and be the type of QB you claim he cannot.
You discounted what he/they accomplished in winning the SB as an aberration, with last season being the true indicator of their ability. You apparently decided his numerous medical issues played no part. How in the world you think they did not, especially when compared to what had already been proven on the field, is beyond me. That suggests bias, or ignorance.
Have to agree with many of the other contributors to this thread. Most of your predictions look very similar to the pundit consensus at the start of the year, regurgitated hype. I can think of at least 2 high profile sports mags that picked Dallas to make it to the SB this year, the majority of your picks also correlate.
Not worried about their losses, they don't affect my life. Already posted in another thread their obvious weaknesses, pass protection and return coverage. That accounts for at least two of those losses. It doesn't matter who they play, unless they fix those issues they will not do squat this year.
thepd7 - You are not kidding about protection. You hear so much this year about how well Ben has avoided the rush, bought time, and made plays upfield. That's great spin for "he is getting harassed like a red headed stepchild and has no protection". Yes he is extremely adept at avoiding the rush, very hard to bring down, and finds a way to make plays even under that type of pressure. Bottom line though, he is getting flushed out of the pocket far too much.
Jets & Browns came into their games against Pitt with <12 sacks on the season for each team. They sacked Ben a combined 11 times, with countless other pressures. Both of the fumbles the Jets caused (on Ben) were also from pressure. He has been sacked 30 times this year, and probably dodged another 20+ with his mobility. He has great numbers, not what you would expect from a QB on pace to get sacked 50 times (and avoid 30+ more).
Glad you enjoyed the discussion thepd7, but I am done in this thread.
Deeko
Lifer
Oh man, you're fun...its a shame to see you go!
Lets see, it was an obvious exaggeration to say half the teams consider dallas to be their "biggest rival", I'm glad you called me out on that horrendous lie, how DARE I get away with that?? However, due to their historical success, a lot of teams out there do consider Dallas to be a big rival - whereas outside of the NFC East, Dallas doesn't really concern themselves with any of them, not any more than the next team anyway. Your Steelers are a good example, since you seem to think I have some sort of bias against them due to me being a Cowboys fan, which I don't. Hate on though.
Tony Romo had 11 starts last year (including playoffs). Were they to win the Superbowl this year, that would give him 30 starts to win a Superbowl, assuming they have a first round bye. Roethlisberger, on the other hand, started 15 games his rookie season (took off the final game, Dallas could very well do that with Romo this year, which would make his starts 29), followed by 16 starts his second season. That, sir, is 31. Now I'm glad you don't expect accuracy from me, but I'm pretty sure 31 is greater than both 30 and 29. I'll have to ask my math teacher though. So 30 starts, 4 postseason for Romo, vs 31 starts, 6 postseason for Roethlisberger. Who would have more NFL experience by their first Superbowl win? Romo did sit the bench for a few years, and naturally this is all hypothetical, since Romo has not made it to, or won the Superbowl yet. Nice try on calling me out on my accuracy, though.
Oh good, you quoted it for a third time today! You didn't do the bold though, killed the emphasis you could have had.
Yes, many people (especially those in the Northwest) are wondering how the Steelers won that Superbowl. Good question, I don't have an answer for you either. For all intents and purposes, they deserved to lose. The Seahawks outplayed them in virtually every facet of the game. Two years later, I'm still just as confused as you are! Great question, perhaps with your 30+ years of masterful experience you can tell me! In the words of John Madden, "the team that scores the most points usually wins the game!" What he left out was "If Ben Roethlisberger plays a TERRIBLE game and the team still wins, don't put him in the same class as Tom Brady or Peyton Manning", but I'm sure it was implied.
In making my assessment of Roethlisberger (or roflberger as my esteemed collegue Phokus prefers), I took into account his horrendous Superbowl performance, his successful, but generally small, contributions during his first two seasons, and yes, his injury-riddled 2006 season. I have already admitted that this assessment appears to be wrong, which makes this argument all the more ridiculous - but while there were reasons to believe he WAS worthy of the hype, there were also reasons to believe he was NOT. You just don't want to accept that those reasons existed, I guess because in your 30+ years of watching football, you clearly know all. I, on the other hand, admit to not knowing all, I just put my opinion out there to cause discussion.
I really can only remember seeing one place predict Dallas to go to the Superbowl, I think Fox Sports, but I could be wrong there. I don't read the magazines, pretty much just Sports Illustrated + the various websites (espn, foxsports, sportsline, etc), so I don't really care what your "high profile mags" say. Sports Illustrated (who released their picks 3 weeks later than me, after the preseason, by the way) picked a Chargers-Saints Superbowl, with the Eagles winning the NFC East. Most analysts, as I recall, picked either Philly or New Orleans to represent the NFC. Almost everyone picked NE to win the Superbowl, and so did I....can you blame me? I guess that means I'm just regurgitating what I heard on Sportscenter, though. By the way, I also picked the 49ers to suck, and they were the media darlings this offseason.
ps thepd7, you broke my heart.
Lets see, it was an obvious exaggeration to say half the teams consider dallas to be their "biggest rival", I'm glad you called me out on that horrendous lie, how DARE I get away with that?? However, due to their historical success, a lot of teams out there do consider Dallas to be a big rival - whereas outside of the NFC East, Dallas doesn't really concern themselves with any of them, not any more than the next team anyway. Your Steelers are a good example, since you seem to think I have some sort of bias against them due to me being a Cowboys fan, which I don't. Hate on though.
Tony Romo had 11 starts last year (including playoffs). Were they to win the Superbowl this year, that would give him 30 starts to win a Superbowl, assuming they have a first round bye. Roethlisberger, on the other hand, started 15 games his rookie season (took off the final game, Dallas could very well do that with Romo this year, which would make his starts 29), followed by 16 starts his second season. That, sir, is 31. Now I'm glad you don't expect accuracy from me, but I'm pretty sure 31 is greater than both 30 and 29. I'll have to ask my math teacher though. So 30 starts, 4 postseason for Romo, vs 31 starts, 6 postseason for Roethlisberger. Who would have more NFL experience by their first Superbowl win? Romo did sit the bench for a few years, and naturally this is all hypothetical, since Romo has not made it to, or won the Superbowl yet. Nice try on calling me out on my accuracy, though.
Oh good, you quoted it for a third time today! You didn't do the bold though, killed the emphasis you could have had.
Yes, many people (especially those in the Northwest) are wondering how the Steelers won that Superbowl. Good question, I don't have an answer for you either. For all intents and purposes, they deserved to lose. The Seahawks outplayed them in virtually every facet of the game. Two years later, I'm still just as confused as you are! Great question, perhaps with your 30+ years of masterful experience you can tell me! In the words of John Madden, "the team that scores the most points usually wins the game!" What he left out was "If Ben Roethlisberger plays a TERRIBLE game and the team still wins, don't put him in the same class as Tom Brady or Peyton Manning", but I'm sure it was implied.
In making my assessment of Roethlisberger (or roflberger as my esteemed collegue Phokus prefers), I took into account his horrendous Superbowl performance, his successful, but generally small, contributions during his first two seasons, and yes, his injury-riddled 2006 season. I have already admitted that this assessment appears to be wrong, which makes this argument all the more ridiculous - but while there were reasons to believe he WAS worthy of the hype, there were also reasons to believe he was NOT. You just don't want to accept that those reasons existed, I guess because in your 30+ years of watching football, you clearly know all. I, on the other hand, admit to not knowing all, I just put my opinion out there to cause discussion.
I really can only remember seeing one place predict Dallas to go to the Superbowl, I think Fox Sports, but I could be wrong there. I don't read the magazines, pretty much just Sports Illustrated + the various websites (espn, foxsports, sportsline, etc), so I don't really care what your "high profile mags" say. Sports Illustrated (who released their picks 3 weeks later than me, after the preseason, by the way) picked a Chargers-Saints Superbowl, with the Eagles winning the NFC East. Most analysts, as I recall, picked either Philly or New Orleans to represent the NFC. Almost everyone picked NE to win the Superbowl, and so did I....can you blame me? I guess that means I'm just regurgitating what I heard on Sportscenter, though. By the way, I also picked the 49ers to suck, and they were the media darlings this offseason.
ps thepd7, you broke my heart.
ThePresence
Elite Member
Ok Deeko, admit you typed that essay in Word and spellchecked it.
My only beef with that post is that you called Phokus "esteemed". 😛
How about a playoff prediction post at this point in time?
My only beef with that post is that you called Phokus "esteemed". 😛
How about a playoff prediction post at this point in time?
ThePresence
Elite Member
:laugh:
Deeko
Lifer
haha ThePresence...no Word, but I did proof-read it, I type these things out pretty quick and if I make a slip up I get screamed at for being an idiot and a liar, so I at least have to read over it first.
hmm...midseason playoff prediction:
NFC
1) Cowboys
2) Packers
3) Seahawks
4) Bucs
5) Giants
6) Saints
AFC
1) Patriots
2) Colts
3) Steelers
4) Chargers
5) Jaguars
6) Broncos
I'm really not sure about the NFC South, the Bucs have looked great one game, not so great another...but so have the Saints. The Panthers are probably done with their injury situation (ps see my original prediction for them 😉), I think the Saints are a better team than the Bucs, but they have been so inconsistant, and are 1-2 in their division, whereas the Bucs are 3-0, with the Bucs having 1 head to head win so far. I'm iffy on putting the Lions in the playoffs, because, well, they're the Lions, and they have a very hard schedule to finish the season. The Redskins and Eagles both have a legitimate shot at that last wildcare spot, too, but the Eagles in particular have a tough schedule (and McNabb is hurt). Egh, after the Cowboys, Packers, and Giants, the NFC is such a crapshoot. The next six or seven teams are all on the same level. I picked the Saints because they have what seems to be the easiest schedule to round out the season...but they also have a lower record. Tough call. If it weren't for the Cowboys and Giants already being there, I'd probably go with the Redskins, but then again, they've had some very close calls against bad teams (OT wins against Dolphins/Jets). Haha, I can't decide. I'm sticking with the Saints, but I'll probably be wrong.
For the AFC, most of those are pretty self explanatory except for the last one. I don't like the Browns there, and we all know how overrated I think Vince Young is. Tonight's game will actually be very telling. If the Broncos win, I'm a lot more comfortable with that. If they lose...maybe I'll go with the Browns. Its tough for a division to have three playoff teams, so regardless I'm hesitant to put the Titans or Texans in that spot, especially the Texans with their 0-3 division record.
edit: haha, I still had the Lions listed as #6, even those stating I was going with the Saints. I think I changed it about 10 times as I typed that....
hmm...midseason playoff prediction:
NFC
1) Cowboys
2) Packers
3) Seahawks
4) Bucs
5) Giants
6) Saints
AFC
1) Patriots
2) Colts
3) Steelers
4) Chargers
5) Jaguars
6) Broncos
I'm really not sure about the NFC South, the Bucs have looked great one game, not so great another...but so have the Saints. The Panthers are probably done with their injury situation (ps see my original prediction for them 😉), I think the Saints are a better team than the Bucs, but they have been so inconsistant, and are 1-2 in their division, whereas the Bucs are 3-0, with the Bucs having 1 head to head win so far. I'm iffy on putting the Lions in the playoffs, because, well, they're the Lions, and they have a very hard schedule to finish the season. The Redskins and Eagles both have a legitimate shot at that last wildcare spot, too, but the Eagles in particular have a tough schedule (and McNabb is hurt). Egh, after the Cowboys, Packers, and Giants, the NFC is such a crapshoot. The next six or seven teams are all on the same level. I picked the Saints because they have what seems to be the easiest schedule to round out the season...but they also have a lower record. Tough call. If it weren't for the Cowboys and Giants already being there, I'd probably go with the Redskins, but then again, they've had some very close calls against bad teams (OT wins against Dolphins/Jets). Haha, I can't decide. I'm sticking with the Saints, but I'll probably be wrong.
For the AFC, most of those are pretty self explanatory except for the last one. I don't like the Browns there, and we all know how overrated I think Vince Young is. Tonight's game will actually be very telling. If the Broncos win, I'm a lot more comfortable with that. If they lose...maybe I'll go with the Browns. Its tough for a division to have three playoff teams, so regardless I'm hesitant to put the Titans or Texans in that spot, especially the Texans with their 0-3 division record.
edit: haha, I still had the Lions listed as #6, even those stating I was going with the Saints. I think I changed it about 10 times as I typed that....
lol I was talking about him owning you. He keeps admitting he made a mistake and providing reasonable explanations for his predictions (again, all while admitting he was wrong) and you keep kissing ROFLsbergers butt like it's JAlba.
I am far too in love with gender confused fratboys to do that to you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
