NFL 2008 - Week One

[add-on]

[quote name='Whiskeyjack' post='1500599' date='Aug 30 2008, 17.39']Culpepper recently wrote an open letter to the NFL community. Its posted [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/29/an-open-letter-from-daunte-culpepper/"]here[/url].[/quote]
Well, that's interesting. Not a bad letter overall. I don't think it got whiny until the second to last paragraph when he wrote:

[quote]Why was I not given the chance to compete for a job?[/quote]

Probably because no one thinks he's good enough/healthy enough to hold one. And the fact that he turned down the Steelers offer makes it pretty clear that he's not being as honest with himself as he thinks he's being.



It's going to be a long year to be a Bears' fan. Orton is not the answer, but then, neither is Rex Grossman. Neither one should be starting on an NFL football team. I predict that midway through the season, after each of these two jokers has had another shot and blown it, half of Chicago fandom will be calling for Caleb Hanie and the other will be asking if Chris Chandler is still able to play and can we get him?

Which is nothing to say of the giant holes on the O-Line. Our first round draft pick (Chris Williams OT) won't be healthy enough in time to make any real impact on this season. And our other starting T, John Tait, is starting to show his age. The other spots have also been plagued with injury.

Which is nothing to say about our dearth of talent at wide receiver. Which I have nothing to say about.

I like Forte. I don't care what anybody says.

Our tight ends are awesome. We need to be running more two TE sets. A lot more.

The biggest disappointment is bound to come from the other side of the ball. Because, let's be honest, nobody really expects anything out of the Bears O. But the Bears D could be just as bad. Despite being at full strength for the preseason, they've looked as bad as they did during the worst of last year, when "injuries were the main problem, obviously." Thing is, they're still not tackling. At all. I've watched a good bit of their preseason, and the first guy to get to the ball almost never brings the ball carrier down. What makes it worse is the way they all hide behind the "nothing matters in the preseason" excuse. Which is true, sure. We'll still be 0-0 when we face the Colts next week. But it seems to me, that if you couldn't tackle last year, and you haven't been able to tackle [i]anyone[/i] through the preseason, much less a team as talented as the Colts, you've got kind of a big problem on your hands.

I'd love it if they were able to find some magic switch to turn them back into the defense that took this team to the SB a couple years ago. But I'm pretty sure they don't have one of those.



7-9/8-8 will be a positive outcome for this year's team.

[Space Bandito]

Patriots cut Chad Jackson and John Lynch, but the Globe is suggesting that Lynch might be back after week one. [url="http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/08/john_lynch_foll.html"]Here is the story[/url]

[StormyMonday]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1497623' date='Aug 27 2008, 23.30']I will make a bold prediction: 49ers games will not be entirely tragic to watch this season.[/quote]

That honor goes to the bears this season. :thumbsdown:

[Bormon]

[quote name='Space Bandito' post='1501192' date='Aug 31 2008, 16.11']Patriots cut Chad Jackson and John Lynch, but the Globe is suggesting that Lynch might be back after week one. [url="http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/08/john_lynch_foll.html"]Here is the story[/url][/quote]


I am not suprised by Lynch, but I am a little by Jackson. That officially makes him a bust. I was hoping that they would at least trade him and maybe get something for him, but it looks like he not worth anything to another team.

So does that make Gaffney the #2 receiver now?

[DeliriousEdd]

[quote name='Trebla' post='1499293' date='Aug 29 2008, 12.32']well, they aren't exactly injury free. WR's Sam Hurd, Miles Austin, and Isiah Stanback are all hurt and look out for the 1st game of the season. That's the #3, 4, and 5 WR on the depth chart. Ouch.

They also are without starting LG Kyle Kosier for 4-6 weeks.[/quote]
No, they're far from injury free but if there had to be injuries, then the mediocre at best wide receiver corps isn't a bad place to get them. Maybe it will get Felix Jones more involved in the passing game early on. I don't think they've picked up another WR off waivers yet which kind of surprises me.

I guess when I say catastrophic I think of season ending injuries to key player(s). Everything I've heard so far is the 3 to 4 week variety.

The injury to Kosier is the one that bothers me the most. What little I've heard about the backups has not filled me with confidence. Offensive line play is critical, just ask any team that played the Giants in the postseason.

[Mexal]

I have to say, I'm really happy that the Bengals are relatively injury free going into the season. I mean, we have injuries (mainly at the WR spot) but they're all injuries that should be fine by opening week.

I'm also extremely happy that we play Baltimore week 1 due to the fact that Flacco is starting and our defense sucks. Beating up on the Ravens might give our guys some confidence. Of course, if we lose, our season is over.

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1503015' date='Sep 2 2008, 10.00']I have to say, I'm really happy that the Bengals are relatively injury free going into the season. I mean, we have injuries (mainly at the WR spot) but they're all injuries that should be fine by opening week.

I'm also extremely happy that we play Baltimore week 1 due to the fact that Flacco is starting and our defense sucks. Beating up on the Ravens might give our guys some confidence. Of course, if we lose, our season is over.[/quote]

Flacco is starting?!

[grozeng]

[quote name='Jaime L' post='1503018' date='Sep 2 2008, 11.03']Flacco is starting?![/quote]

Yup. Boller still has a hurt shoulder and Troy Smith has tonsilitis. Makes my Troy Smith pick in experts less impressive now.

[Bormon]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1503015' date='Sep 2 2008, 11.00']I have to say, I'm really happy that the Bengals are relatively injury free going into the season. I mean, we have injuries (mainly at the WR spot) but they're all injuries that should be fine by opening week.

I'm also extremely happy that we play Baltimore week 1 due to the fact that Flacco is starting and our defense sucks. Beating up on the Ravens might give our guys some confidence. Of course, if we lose, our season is over.[/quote]


So Mex, whats your cofindence level with Perry?

I picked him up in both of my fantasy drafts for a song (13th rd for 12 team draft and 9th rd for a 16 team draft)

Do you think he can be a dependable RB given that all of the WRs are hurt?

[Mexal]

[quote name='Bormon' post='1503144' date='Sep 2 2008, 11.35']So Mex, whats your cofindence level with Perry?

I picked him up in both of my fantasy drafts for a song (13th rd for 12 team draft and 9th rd for a 16 team draft)

Do you think he can be a dependable RB given that all of the WRs are hurt?[/quote]

I think he can be dependable if he stays healthy. The problem with Perry is he gets major injuries far too easily. He has only played one season in the last 4.

I like him though. He's shifty, has great hands and is quick.

[Kalbear]

For those geeks out there, here's a really nice [url="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2008/09/02/ramblings/stat-analysis/6505/"]analysis of passer rating[/url] and why it's a bit odd as a way to gauge QBs.

[Rockroi]

I seems that everytime anyone mentions "passer raiting" it is accompanied- even jokingly -by the disclaimer that 1) nobody understands the passer rating and 2) its not as accurate as anyone would have hoped. In deciding pitching in ML Baseball, we use the earned Run Average which, while not common knowledge to everyone, is 100% intuitive (earned runs given up over nine innings). The passer raiting does not give us that.

I think having that almost bizarre maximum (153.2?) serves to show people how out of whack the rating is. Not to mention that many times, the result you see is not indicative of the performance of the QB. Thus, part of the appeal of the QB raiting is that nobody understands it; because if we did understand it, we may not like it. I think having a more intuitive system is far more valuable. The ONE thing I like about the CURRENt raiting system (besides the fact that AT LEAST we have a number to measure), is the value it puts on INTs- if a QB throws a pick, its a massive penalty against the QB (as well it should be). Otherwise, I am not sure the rating helps us out that much.

[Mack Kilimaro]

[quote name='Jaime L' post='1503018' date='Sep 2 2008, 11.03']Flacco is starting?![/quote]

Thanks for reminding me.

Wait, no. No thanks at all. I need to go cry in the corner now.

Gonna be a long season, I fear.

[Bormon]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1503221' date='Sep 2 2008, 13.37']...The ONE thing I like about the CURRENt raiting system (besides the fact that AT LEAST we have a number to measure), is the value it puts on INTs- if a QB throws a pick, its a massive penalty against the QB (as well it should be). Otherwise, I am not sure the rating helps us out that much.[/quote]


The problem with that is that there are an infinite number of reasons that a ball may be intercepted. Not all of them are the QBs fault.... so its important to note that a QB rating is NOT a rating for an individual but rather the rating of that QB for that team.

[Kalbear]

The big problems I see with passer rating as it stands is:
1) awards way too much credit for completion%, without any regards to actual success. Captain Checkdown had a great passer rating but he had something like 3 ypa and 2 first downs the entire day.(yes, it does take into account average gain, but this isn't the same as success)
2) awards way too much credit for TDs. I don't think a 99-yard pass should be worth half as much as a 1-yard TD pass.
3) it is heavily biased on a low amount of passes because of the way it works (based on the rate of things). If someone threw a 11/14, 170 yards, 3 TD game, they'd have a perfect passing day. Does that sound like a perfect game?
4) it's artificially capped.

It also doesn't take into account QB value. It ignores sacks, running plays and fumbles. It ignores dropped passes. It ignores DPI. These are all things that we think about when we think of QB value, but we usually only rate a QB via passer rating.

I don't think a more intuitive system is correct either, as people's intuitions on what works in football are just flat-out wrong. "Establish the run" is one of those where everyone thinks that it should be done - but statistically, teams that establish the run do no better than those that establish the pass, and teams that run for small gains early do not run better as the game goes on. For passing, most people think that TDs are the holy grail - because of fantasy football. But TDs are really fickle beasts when you're talking about a QB. Sometimes they're entirely the QB's awesome throw. Other times it's because the receiver made a brilliant play. Other times it's a matter of field position; QBs rarely throw 1-yard TD passes, for example. That doesn't mean they're not valuable, but it's easy to overvalue a QB throwing TDs.

For the highest rating (158.3) I think it's clear that a QB had a stellar day, no matter how you slice it. It's more interesting when you're talking about people with 100 ratings and how they compare to each other.

[Space Bandito]

[quote name='Bormon' post='1502899' date='Sep 2 2008, 09.28']I am not suprised by Lynch, but I am a little by Jackson. That officially makes him a bust. I was hoping that they would at least trade him and maybe get something for him, but it looks like he not worth anything to another team.

So does that make Gaffney the #2 receiver now?[/quote]

No, that would be Wes Welker. By all accounts he should be ready by week one. The Raiders are sniffing around Jackson.

[Bormon]

[quote name='Space Bandito' post='1503252' date='Sep 2 2008, 13.57']No, that would be Wes Welker. By all accounts he should be ready by week one. The Raiders are sniffing around Jackson.[/quote]

I know Welker will be ready. What I really meant (and you all should be able to read my mind)... is that Gaffney will line up wide opposite of Moss, allowing Welker to fill the slot position where he is more valuable. I expect Washington to get a lot more playing time now too.

[davos]

Despite a messy offseason I expect the packers to be amoung the top 4 teams in the NFC this year. With Favre at the helm they would have been legit contenders. Its hard to say how the team will respond to the ugly way the split with Favre occured. That being said Rodgers has looked good most of the preseason. He's stepped into a good situation to have success right away, unlike most first year starters at QB so the possiblity is open that he could really surprise.

Outside of the QB position the team is solid and deep. They have one of the better offensive lines in football right now. There is no reason to think that Grant won't be as productive as last year and Jackson has looked quite promising behind him. The recievers are an excellant group. The linebackers are also one of the elite groups in the league. The defensive line is strong agianst the run. They did lack the ability to create a consistant pass rush late last season, something that played prominently in the NFC championship game loss to the giants. The defensive backfield also had a meltdown in that game and remains a bit of a question mark despite having put together a solid season up to that point. I'm looking at them as a 10-6 team right now and if Rodgers comes along quickly they maybe able to better that mark. Of course if Rodgers has an poor first couple of games in fighting could result and we could see a collapse.

The opening game agianst MN is about as big as a week 1 game can get. Its a long season and the vikings have a history of starting hot and then fading just as dramatically. The team that comes away with a win next monday night will have a real leg up on the division race right at the start though.

[Ser Paladin]

Hey, just 2 days til the season starts. Barely enough time to put together my occassionally hurtful (sorry Jaime) pre-season predictions for the NFL:

[u]NFC East:[/u]
Cowboys 13-3. I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Eagles 10-6, fighting for a playoff berth, maybe.
Giants 10-6, not as explosive as last year, but not bad
Redskins 6-10, again, sorry Jaime.

[u]NFC South:[/u]
Saints 12-4, could be the class of the NFC
Panthers 10-6, Delhomme healthy = more wins
Bucs 7-9, no good vibes here, what's their direction?
Falcons 5-11, rebuilding mode, but line looks pretty decent, to start.

[u]NFC North:[/u]
Vikings 9-7, great D, great runner, and that's it. Stop picking them for the Super Bowl, media people.
Packers 8-8, Favre hangover, figuratively
Bears 7-9, Grossman/ Orton hangovers, literally.
Lions 5-11, nothing to say, just not a good team.

[u]NFC West (yeesh this division stinks. Again.):[/u]
Cardinals 9-7, by default. I'd rather pick no team from this division.
Seahawks 7-9, peaked, on the decline
Niners 7-9. Nolan watches the D, Martz the O, gotta be better on both sides, I think
Rams 2-14, St. Louis, you are on the clock


[u]AFC East:[/u]
Patriots 15-1, yup, still that good
Jets 9-7, last year was the fluke, Favre gets the credit for turnaround anyway
Buffalo 8-8, like the bills for some reason.
Dolphins 5-11, however, no reason to like the Phins

[u]AFC South (best division in football? Either here or NFC East):[/u]
Jaguars 11-5, time to dethrone the Colts? may just be.
Colts 11-5, still, they are good enough for 11 wins.
Titans 7-9, not a good offensive team, maybe more wins on the strength of their D
Texans 5-11, better than their record shows.

[u]AFC North:[/u]
Steelers 10-6, by default, as Ohio can't get its act together
Bengals 8-8, hate giving them a winning record, but the talent is there on O
Browns 8-8, last year was an anomaly, team still decent
Ravens 2-14, aging D, young (and brittle) O. Not good.

[u]AFC West:[/u]
Chargers 13-3, second best team in football
Broncos 9-7, just don't have "it" anymore. Still, some nice talent
Raiders 6-10, gotta get better sometime, right? maybe?
Chiefs 3-13, heading south, not a good team at all, IMO.

ETA: Fixed to match Wins and Losses.

[Bronn Stone]

Can't argue with any team's specific pick, but by my count, you do have the NFL as four games under .500 over the course of the season. :P

And my large print job is complete so I can go back to work now.